Robert F. Smith Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 It would appear from the quote jwhitlock provided that's not all the activists want.It does depend which activists. The Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) wants to legalize minor consent for sexual activity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association . Link to comment
tonie Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 If gays are more prone per capita to sexual abuse of children and youth, is that not a legitimate consideration in determining who shall be a Scoutmaster?I knew my assessment was correct. Link to comment
stemelbow Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 Scott Lloyd, on 15 Jul 2015 - 09:12 AM, said: If gays are more prone per capita to sexual abuse of children and youth, is that not a legitimate consideration in determining who shall be a Scoutmaster? I knew my assessment was correct. ugh...If men are more prone per capita to sexual abuse of children and youth than women, is that not a legitimate consideration in determining who shall be a Scoutmaster? Why are men in any sort of consideration at all when it comes to leadership callings over youth. Priesthood should be held only by women and men should sit quietly in Church, covering our faces and only do things when assisting women, it seems as Scott's reasoning would have it. 1 Link to comment
KevinG Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 It does depend which activists. The Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) wants to legalize minor consent for sexual activity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association . NAMBLA represents gays like Planned Parenthood represents fertility clinics. Not a good example. 1 Link to comment
Damien the Leper Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 I wouldn't submit it as rigorous scholarly research. But I often find it useful for quick reference -- or answering a CFR. And as a starting point for information on a topic. Feel free to specifically rebut any portion of the entry if you can. That might be more persuasive than a dismissive ad hom.It wasn't meant to be an ad hom, Scott. If one were to make a valid argument from a reputable source provided by Wikipedia then I can take the argument more seriously. Merely citing Wikipedia is like citing the Mormon Curtain. Link to comment
aurelio Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 It wasn't meant to be an ad hom, Scott. If one were to make a valid argument from a reputable source provided by Wikipedia then I can take the argument more seriously. Merely citing Wikipedia is like citing the Mormon Curtain.It depends. Wikipedia can be a good source, or maybe not. Wikipedia can certainly be used as a starting point. I would likely count it more accurate, and trustworthy, than U.S. mainstream media. Many agree that it's not the prime source to cite. Link to comment
KevinG Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 Finding an unbiased source on pederasty rates (homo vs hetero) is darn near impossible. Every article I can find has a pro or anti gay agenda as preface. Including the "refutation" article above. There are methodology issues either way. Which kind of brings me back to allowing sponsors to teach their own morality and select their own leaders anyway. The LDS should be able to select good examples of LDS men to teach boys, just as any sponsoring organization should be able to perpetuate their own values. 4 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 It does depend which activists. The Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) wants to legalize minor consent for sexual activity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association .The activist group jwhitlock quoted says the latest BSA policy is imperfect because it allows religious chartering organizations to discriminate against gay men. In other words, if they are to achieve their ideal (and I've no doubt that's their long-range intent), they would either force the Church of Jesus Christ to cave in to their demands or force it from being associated with BSA. Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 I knew my assessment was correct.How many times have you been warned about board nannying, yet you don't get the message. Tell you what: Take your complaints to the moderators. Then, if you please, report back to us their response. Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 The attitudes and prejudice expressed in this thread against gay people are unfortunate and saddening.Shall I start identifying all the things I read on this board that "disgust" or "sadden" me? Maybe we could all do it and have one big, sad disgust fest. 2 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 It depends. Wikipedia can be a good source, or maybe not. Wikipedia can certainly be used as a starting point. I would likely count it more accurate, and trustworthy, than U.S. mainstream media. Many agree that it's not the prime source to cite.Wikipedia might be regarded as a crowd-sourced summary of what's in the mainstream media. It is what it is, and recognizing that, one can find it useful to a degree. 1 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 In many states you can be legally denied a place to live, be fired from your employment, denied hospital visitation of loved ones, denied public accommodations simply because of your sexual orientation. Do you really think that people volunteer for that? You are behind the times. These days, having. SSA or sympathizing with those who do is not only accepted, it has become chic. Your argument might have had relevance 20 or even 10 years ago. Not today. Didn't ignore it just didn't address it. My personal view is that as long as it is between consenting adults it is none of my business what they do between the bedsheets. It is between them and their God. Do you walk around town asking people about their sex lives?Ignored it? Failed to address it? It's a distinction without a difference. It's all well and good to say that consenting adults should be left to their own hobbies, but when vulnerable, impressionable youth are introduced into the picture, it changes the equation altogether. 1 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 In many states you can be legally denied a place to live, be fired from your employment, denied hospital visitation of loved ones, denied public accommodations simply because of your sexual orientation. Do you really think that people volunteer for that? You are behind the times. These days, having. SSA or sympathizing with those who do is not only accepted, it has become chic. Your argument might have had relevance 20 or even 10 years ago. Not today. Didn't ignore it just didn't address it. My personal view is that as long as it is between consenting adults it is none of my business what they do between the bedsheets. It is between them and their God. Do you walk around town asking people about their sex lives?Ignored it? Failed to address it? It's a distinction without a difference. It's all well and good to say that consenting adults should be left to their own hobbies, but when vulnerable, impressionable youth are introduced into the picture, it changes the equation altogether. 2 Link to comment
SmileyMcGee Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 Shall I start identifying all the things I read on this board that "disgust" or "sadden" me? Maybe we could all do it and have one big, sad disgust fest.Sounds like an interesting thread topic Link to comment
Gray Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 Shall I start identifying all the things I read on this board that "disgust" or "sadden" me? Maybe we could all do it and have one big, sad disgust fest. Start? 2 Link to comment
tonie Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 (edited) How many times have you been warned about board nannying, yet you don't get the message. Tell you what: Take your complaints to the moderators. Then, if you please, report back to us their response.Scott, this is probably the 2nd or 3rd you have falsely accused me. You falsely accused of violating board by using your name in my signature - it is not and was not a violation.You once again accuse me of being a board nanny.You have not denied my assessment of your post, It seems very apparent, I was spot-on.Surmising the intent of you post is not being a board nanny. Surmising the intent of your post is being astute.As i have not accused you of violating board rules; who is the person playing board nanny? Edited July 15, 2015 by tonie Link to comment
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 Start?So good. You are funny Gray. Link to comment
tonie Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 ugh...If men are more prone per capita to sexual abuse of children and youth than women, is that not a legitimate consideration in determining who shall be a Scoutmaster?Why are men in any sort of consideration at all when it comes to leadership callings over youth. Priesthood should be held only by women and men should sit quietly in Church, covering our faces and only do things when assisting women, it seems as Scott's reasoning would have it.Who has time for such logic that crumbles anothers house of cards Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 (edited) Start?Yes. Declaring how "disgusted" or "saddened" you are about this or that is, as mola characterized it, an endeavor to shut down debate by trying to make others feel guilty. It is manipulative. It is emotional blackmail (see my sig line). It is generally childish. I don't typically engage in it. Edited July 15, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 Scott, this is probably the 2nd or 3rd you have falsely accused me. You falsely accused of violating board by using your name in my signature - it is not and was not a violation.You once again accuse me of being a board nanny.You have not denied my assessment of your post, It seems very apparent, I was spot-on.Surmising the intent of you post is not being a board nanny. Surmising the intent of your post is being astute.As i have not accused you of violating board rules; who is the person playing board nanny?Board nannying doesn't just pertain to board rules. It could involve rules of one's own devising that one accuses others of breaking. But be sure to get back to us with that moderator response, if any. Link to comment
stemelbow Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 Yes. Declaring how "disgusted" or "saddened" you are about this or that is, as mola characterized it, an endeavor to shut down debate by trying to make others feel guilty. It is manipulative. It is emotional blackmail (see my sig line). It is generally childish. I don't typically engage in it. Now I'm starting to understand those critics who offend Mormons through postings when the Mormons responds with "that's offensive". They must feel pretty manipulated any emotionally blackmailed. 1 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 (edited) ugh...If men are more prone per capita to sexual abuse of children and youth than women, is that not a legitimate consideration in determining who shall be a Scoutmaster?Why are men in any sort of consideration at all when it comes to leadership callings over youth. Priesthood should be held only by women and men should sit quietly in Church, covering our faces and only do things when assisting women, it seems as Scott's reasoning would have it.Because youth benefit from the influence of both men and women in their lives. Nevertheless there needs to be care taken in selecting those adults who are placed in positions of trust and leadership so as not to place youth in harm's way. Edited July 15, 2015 by Scott Lloyd Link to comment
Gray Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 (edited) Yes. Declaring how "disgusted" or "saddened" you are about this or that is, as mola characterized it, an endeavor to shut down debate by trying to make others feel guilty. It is manipulative. It is emotional blackmail (see my sig line). It is generally childish.I don't typically engage in it. I see. But it isn't manipulative to say that someone is being manipulative or childish in their comments? But it is manipulative to express dismay at someone's comments? I don't quite understand how this works. Should I feel emotionally blackmailed now? Edited July 15, 2015 by Gray 2 Link to comment
stemelbow Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 Because youth benefit from the influence of both men and women in their lives. Nevertheless there need to be care taken in selecting those adults who are placed in positions of trust and leadership so as not to place youth in harm's way. You just got me thinking on this at a new angle. I wonder if youth would benefit with influence from LGBT folks in their lives too. One of these days, when their opposition dies down, we'll be able to test that better. Your last sentence I wholly agree with--straight and gay. 2 Link to comment
Gray Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 (edited) Because youth benefit from the influence of both men and women in their lives. Nevertheless there need to be care taken in selecting those adults who are placed in positions of trust and leadership so as not to place youth in harm's way. So allegedly higher rates of bad behavior in a particular demographic ISN'T a reason enough to discriminate against that demographic? Edited July 15, 2015 by Gray 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts