My Religious Dilemma

As far as i know a gay person doesn't make a peadophile.
But then maybe their right to be weary since theres lots of sexual abuse around the world in the christian religion, but maybe that's a whole other topic.

Yes, I understand it too. But the real thing is anybody can find something that's wrong with leaving their children to other adults. If people were so afraid, very few children would have interactions with adults that were not their parents. We should be just as apprehensive about a woman leading a Boy Scouts troop as a gay man. However, you don't see many people complain about that do you?

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

I don't, it has no basis in reality and is faintly apologetic at best.

__________________
http://www.last.fm/user/diezelpower/

Someone is on a serious neg-rep spree.

You do not have to agree with someone else's opinion, but comeon: "No basis in reality"?

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

Haha! I counted all of my negative rep and positive rep. After they canceled each other out, I had a +1.

Yeah, I think it's rather a stretch to say homosexuals aren't allowed in the boy scouts because they're actually worried some of them might abuse their power. Something more sinister is at play I'm afraid. And like I said, it's also hardly likely that some outed homosexual would join the scouts in an attempt to fondle them given the current climate. In fact, I'd say it's much more likely someone posing as a heterosexual would do something like that. So like Johnny-boy said, let's just exclude all contact between grown up men and boys because there might be a possibility they'll abuse their power. Gimme a break.

Oh and mr. or missuz neg-repper, I'd like a comment if you're gonna basically slap me for saying so much as "Hullo". Ta very much.

I don't understand what you're saying in the last sentence at all. Regarding the rest: classifying pedophiles as an entirely seperate category of people is a personal decision on your part. As I explained, the word itself can refer to people attracted to children of one or both genders.

Ultimately, though, this isn't centered around pedophilia at all, which is why I didn't bring it up to begin with. It's about abusing power (more below).


A situational offender is someone who does not seek out the offensive act, but commits it only when in a situation encourages or easily allows for it. In other words, a great deal of sexual abuse is not actively planned out, which speaks in direct response to your last point below.

I'm sorry that you're insulted, but I see absolutely no reason for you to be, nor do I find mere offense to constitute an argument.

The reasoning here is very straightforward: surround any person with people of the sex they are attracted to, and it stands to reason that there will be some kind of increase in the likelihood that they will be attracted to one of them. You seem to reject this conclusion, but I don't see which of these specific claims you're taking issue with.


So, according to you, no sexual abuse outside of outright rape can take place after the age of 14?

Regardless of your answer to that, you're still missing the point: even if the sex is consensual and legal, as it would be with a 17-year old scout, it is still an abuse of power. Scout leaders are in a position of authority, and thus wield considerable influence on the scouts they lead, who presumably look up to them. It's the same principle that compels grown women to stay in abusive relationships for years on end, at times. These people are victims, despite the fact that they are "fully sentient" or "in control of [their] actions."

Moreover, even if you deny that such things are abuse in a legal or moral sense, it is still an abuse of the scouts' hierarchy if scout leaders engage in consensual relationships with scouts. It's the same in businesses, and in the military: superiors cannot engage in relationships with those they oversee, regardless of sexual orientation. Such relationships compromise judgement and foster distrust.

The Boy Scouts believe in God. Assuming God exists, then, it seems rather silly to ask why they would think that the "best" citizens recognize God's existence. If you're not persuaded of God's existence, then I'm sure the stipulation would seem pointless, but it's perfectly rational for people who have already come to the conclusion that God is real.

There's no way to believe in the Christian God, for example, while simultaneously believing that there is no particular benefit to believing in Him. Yet that's essentially what you're asking the Boy Scouts to do: believe in God without thinking there's any benefit, as a citizen, for doing so. This strikes me as a very odd idea.


Sure. People can "do the right" thing regardless of religious belief. But I don't see how that demonstrates that "morality can exist without relation to a higher power," which was your initial claim. If there is no God, then those people are not exhibiting morality; they're responding to social conditioning in one form or another, or simply choosing to honor the social contract.

The idea that morality is subjective without a higher power is basically inarguable. We can haggle about the definition of the word, and talk about whether or not any of it matters at all, but objective morality sans a God of some kind is logistically impossible.


Forgive me, but while Gol talks a bit about instincts and the survival value of socially constructed systems of morality (all interesting), I don't see anything there of particular relevance to our conversation.


The data on "situational offenders" suggest that the likelihood of people "posing" as heterosexual is somewhat unlikely (or, at least, certainly not a given). Regardless, the fact that people can lie their way around some of these things doesn't invalidate them.

As you also might have seen in my initial post on the matter, I wasn't suggesting that this was clearly THE reason the Boy Scouts do not allow homosexuals. Reason dictates their respective religions have something to do with it. I'm simply introducing a non-theistic, common-sense argument into the mix: sending people in a position of authority into the woods with post-pubescent, and sometimes adolescent scouts of the gender which they are attracted to adds an unnecessary, frivelous risk to a situation inherently ripe for abuse.

I assume you're referring to me, as I've given you negative rep for 4 posts in this thread, I believe. You've apparently missed that I've given you positive rep for 3, however. The 4 were for posts that I thought were rude, insulting, or set the discussion back, rather than moved it forward. The 3 were for posts I thought were thoughtful or insightful.

I don't regret any of the positive of negative reps, and would have responded sooner, but wanted to reply to your last post on the matter first, and didn't have time until this morning.

Wow, your understanding of "rude and insulting" may be just a tad skewed. I merely disagreed with your opinions, if that merits a negative point, then so be it.

In any case, I said what I wanted to say on the subject matter. Talking to a brick wall tends to lose its appeal after a while.

"You're being absolutely nonsensical."

"Christ, I can't believe you of all people would play into the hands of homophobic propaganda."

"it has no basis in reality"

If you don't find these "rude and insulting" then it isn't my understanding of the words that is skewed.

I don't suppose you appreciate the irony inherent in calling me a "brick wall" in the same post in which you deny saying anything insulting.

That said, I've made my arguments, and I've adjusted them to respond to your arguments. How that makes me a "brick wall," I've no idea, unless you're using the term to describe anyone who is unpersuaded by your claims and seemingly random instances of outrage.

Here's the problem with that, the scouts say you have to have a belief in a higher power, but they don't tell you which one to believe in. Well, you could infer that they mean God because it's in the oath but, they're accepting of all beliefs.

If you think belief in God is required to be the "best" citizen possible, then that means people who believe in Allah, Moksha or Nirvana are incapable of becoming the "best" type of citizens. The scouts are, however, saying any belief makes you capable of being a "better" citizen. So if they're willing to accept the belief of other god(s), or spiritual methods, and say they are capable of becoming a "better" citizen, why not people who don't believe?

Good post/question.

Perhaps they recognize that faith, in and of itself, is generally very important to a person's development and ideology. It could be the importance of faith in general, rather than a particular God, which they believe to be valuable. I can certainly see that, given that most types of theism should generally, by its very nature, instill a certain form of humility in its followers. Atheism has the same potential, but in a very different way, of course.

By the way: I still intend to pick up our line of discussion. I started to, exactly, but as you've noticed, got a tad sidetracked. I think we're approaching some very important points and I wouldn't want to derail that.

Why not just stress the ways of becoming a better citizen and serving your duties to your country? Why should faith in the supernatural make people more likely to be "better" citizens? Is it because of the hopes of a good afterlife? Why can't they just teach good skills because of the positive affects they have on their surroundings?

No problem at all. I will await your replies patiently.

I changed my mind, I'll be damned if if I'm gonna let a condescending twat such as yourself get the last word.
Funny, it seems pretty clear to me. In reality, what are the chances of a homosexual man, saying he's a homosexual, becoming a scout leader and then abusing his power by seducing young boys? I'd say, to quote Sammy, "the fart of a ghost of a snowball's chance in Hell".
It's not about pedophilia, it's about homophobia.
Read about the chances of a gay man abusing his powers as a scout leader above, then give me the real reason why you're so dead set on trying to defend this organization.
I'm taking issue with the claim that an outed gay man is of any threat to young boys.



I don't feel any sympathy for either abused housewives nor "abused" young men. They're sheep and get what's coming to them.

Blah blah blah, ghost of a fart....apologetic...you know what I'm gonna say.


I actually meant for you to defend that claim without relation to the Boy scouts, I have no interest in debating what a bigoted, outdated organization thinks about anything really.


And people who believe in God are not responding to social conditioning? So tell me, people who don't believe in God and yet follow a certain set of standards are not behaving morally? Do you have some other word I haven't heard of to describe such behavior? Morality is a set of standards humans made up in order to survive, God had very little to do with it. You should have taken Ethics when you were in high-school.

Can't help you out there sonny boy, but you may want to re-read the sentence above though.

Show me this data please, because I was under the impression that most pedophiles were posing as normal, heterosexual men in order to mask their true desires more effectively.

Which is why I said it was faintly apologetic at best. You're quite good at that though, I'll give you that, justifying the unjustifiable *cough*IRAQ*cough*. Common sense my ass. Let see: someone is gay, outed, applies for a scout leadership, the boys know he's gay, the parents know he's gay, the organization knows he's gay, yet this man would throw his reputation, his struggle to be treated as an equal because, you know, he's surrounded with people of the same gender. What percentage of gay men are attracted to little boys, do you know perhaps? You seem to be good with data, maybe you can dig that one out too. I'd say a very low percentage. It doesn't matter however, because men, especially homosexuals apparently walk with a permanent hard on and are simply unable to control themselves when around people of the same gender.


See, now that was a rude and insulting post, with plenty of condescending to boot. I expect at least 10 negative points for my trouble though or I will be seriously peeved.

P.s. Loved the very subtle change of tone when addressing Matthew there. Smooooth.

While this is true, I think that the accountability ultimately falls to the adult who has, by accepting a position of leadership has said that they are ready and willing to handle it properly. There's always the possibility of something happening that's initiated by the kids (whether with an adult or each other), but it is the adult's duty to curb that before it leads to trouble. I don't think it matters if the kid was enticing him or what-have-you. The adult is supposed to have more sense than the kid he's leading. This is also the reason that it is required that there be more than one adult at any scout related event at all times. Granted I know the two adults could conspire for foul play...but often there are more than two (depending on the size of the troop) and really what are the odds?

__________________
"Like all dreamers, Steven mistook disenchantment for truth."

I do not care if you are a priest/scout leader/Den Mother/teacher/president/etc…/whatever. If you hold a position of authority over minors then you should be respectful of those children in your care. I do not give a damn about your gender or your sexual orientation when it comes to authority over minors. Pedophilia is totally different than homosexuality. Statistically, adult Caucasian heterosexual men are the ones committing these acts of vileness, but that may have something to do with the ability to “catch” these men and the basic census numbers. Either way the major topic of this thread is “Boy Scouts”, “Religion”, “Homosexuals”, “Confusion”. Why has it become a tirade for the homophobia card? Why can’t a person be who they are as long as they do not infringe on another’s beliefs? Why can I not say that I think being a homosexual is not for me? Does that mean I am a homophobe? Why should homosexuals be put on a pedestal just because they have had to put up with a lot of B.S.? I think the persecutors should be admonished - yes, but in no way do I think a homosexual, African American, Jew, woman, Redneck, whatever title you want to use should be removed from suspicion for anything. Maybe it is because I am a parent, or because one of my children have been a victim, or because my Girlfriend wakes up at least once a week screaming because of things done to her when she was a child that makes me so terribly “homophobic”, but I will not give a pass to anyone after the things I have been privy too. I do not care if you are Mother Teresa, as a parent one has to protect their children these days and by god no one gets a pass…not Jesus, Rosanne, President Clinton , or even Gandhi or Mickey Mouse gets an automatic “go” from me anymore when my kids are involved. Sorry life is life and parents you need to watch everyone from Uncle Bob to Cousin Sue to Pastor Joe, we are all human and to be so is to err.





(heh ok that last line was lame but hey it is true.)

7thson, I totally agree. That's been my thoughts all along. I put them in a couple of sentences but, you did a much better job with it. Positive rep for you. Good job.

I'm assuming since I'm essentially the only one to hold the opposite opinion to Yoda's, that you're referring to me. I don't think I ever implied that gay scout leaders should be let to do whatever they want, I think they should be under as much scrutiny as the straight ones, but not more, and I certainly don't think they should be denied the chance to be scout leaders simply because of their sexual orientation. I would assume that not just anyone gets the scout leadership, these are suppose to be stand up, respected people in their community (I may be wrong, I know nothing about the Boy scouts). How homosexuality makes them less trustworthy, I think only Chris knows.

Your post isn't homophobic (or maybe I failed to see the point of it), but I have to say, I don't quite understand what you mean by "being a homosexual isn't for me". I seemed to be hearing "If I were given a choice I wouldn't be one". Are you implying homosexuality is a choice? Or are you one of those that "disagrees with the lifestyle, but resents being called a homophobe"?

This is kinda what I am talking about, you are automatically being defensive and maybe it is my fault for not thinking how I should express myself with words. All I meant was that I am not a homosexual therefore that lifestyle is not for me. Nothing else was meant by it, I was not implying anything.