Bishop responds to Boy Scouts' decision on admission of homosexual members [CWN]

[Cat_Herder]

when people need to stoke the latest Moral Panic, this is how its done.

No one is saying that all gay boys are molesters. We are saying that all gay boys are vulnerable, as vulnerable as boys in a Girl Scout camp or girls in a Boy Scout camp.

Don’t be a bigot.

 

[Sonic]

Mmmm…I don’t think I used the word “all.” Nope, didn’t use that word.

Yep… you said “group”… not “all”

If you put a group of hormonally charged pubescent teenaged boys together, especially without adequate adult supervision, you can end up with crazy situations pretty easily.

I dunno. Are you saying they wouldn’t? I think you’re assuming that sexual harassment is about attraction, and I don’t make that same assumption. I think that bullies look for any angle they can find and use whatever leverage they have. This is beside the point, though.

When sexual harassment is targeted toward a member of the same sex it is homosexual in nature regardless of whether it’s done by bullies or not. We’re talking about conduct not attraction. Homosexual does not equal SSA.

I ask again…

Would a truly straight scout (who was not suffering from an anti-social pathological condition) sexually harass his fellow boy scouts?

 

[Fairwinds]

No one is saying that all gay boys are molesters. We are saying that all gay boys are vulnerable, as vulnerable as boys in a Girl Scout camp or girls in a Boy Scout camp.

Don’t be a bigot.

I’m a bigot why? what bigot beliefs are you accusing me of?

that’s an uncharitable comment, coming out of nowhere.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I’m a bigot why? what bigot beliefs are you accusing me of?

that’s an uncharitable comment, coming out of nowhere.

You’re the one who said that the dissenters are calling gay boys molesters. We are not doing that and we resent that stereotype.

 

[Fairwinds]

You’re the one who said that the dissenters are calling gay boys molesters. We are not doing that and we resent that stereotype.

oh yeah, the Moral Panic requires the portrayal of gays as NAMBLA recruiters in waiting, potential gay scouts ready to storm the fortress of Goodness.

that’s not being a bigot. if I hated or had an unreasoned Fear of gays, now, that **that’s **being a bigot.

 

[edwest2]

From the Chicago Tribune.

chicagotribune.com/news/local/suburbs/crystal_lake_cary/ct-met-church-evicts-scouts-20130602,0,6978607.story

Peace,
Ed

 

[Kamaduck]

I think we are just talking over each others’ heads here; let me reset and let’s see if we can understand each other.

While I disagree with a few points (specifically, I don’t think we can make assumptions about the “lifestyle” of boys with SSA), I do see what you’re saying. While I don’t think it’s fair to scouts who are outed against their will, I do think that accommodating each gay scout is infeasible under the circumstances you describe.

To be honest, my skepticism is fueled by my own experiences camping. I’m a girl, so I’ve never been a boy scout. I have, however, gone on several coed camping trips with my JROTC adventure training group. There’s no communal showering and no separation of boys and girls except in the middle of the night. We haven’t had any problems that I’m aware of. I’m going to be honest- if there was a lesbian girl in my tent, it would be a 100% non-issue, for her and for the rest of us. There’s not even enough space to change out of our ACU’s. We just go to sleep.

Now, apparently BSA insists on communal showers and roomy log cabins as opposed to our little outhouses and tiny tents. I don’t understand it, but I guess I can’t question it.

I’m just going to advise all the outdoorsy gay boys out there to join adventure training when they enter high school, because we’d love to have them.

 

[Sonic]

I’m just going to advise all the outdoorsy gay boys out there to join adventure training when they enter high school, because we’d love to have them.

From the JROTC Leadership and Education and Training Manual:

Page 7

1. INTEGRITY: To be morally correct and honest in everything you do. The Rules and Regulations helps develop this trait. A leader never quibbles by making petty distinctions, failing to tell the whole truth, or reporting only what serves the leader’s interest. Integrity is a mark of one’s courage and honesty. Without integrity leadership is a meaningless concept. Set your standards high and set the example for your subordinates.

Page 4:

IV. DUTY: The moral obligation to do what is right and the compulsion felt to meet such obligation. Robert E. Lee stated “Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more. You should never wish to do less.” This is the first and foremost element of any code of ethic adopted by cadets. It denotes loyalty to the mission, stan-dards, and traditions of [your] School. This indicates that a leader who is performing their duty is not doing it for gratification. Rather, the leader is dedicating his efforts toward the welfare of the organization, the support of their commander, and the execution of the responsibilities of their offices. This re-quires a personal sense of responsibility, setting the proper example, the cour-age to do what is right and just, the obedience to orders, loyalty, and initiative.

Page 6 -

1. BEARING: Demeanor involving one’s personal appearance, car-riage, deportment, and personal conduct. Leaders must demon-strate a natural dignity that does not allow temper, irritation, sar-casm, or any display of a lack of control. It is difficult to control others if you cannot control yourself.

1. COURAGE: Recognizing the fear of criticism or doubt but, facing the situation with calmness and firmness. Moral courage is a much tougher factor to deal with than physical courage. The enforcement of expectations, rules and regulations, and standards, particularly when it involves a friend or peer, is a good example of the moral courage a leader may need. Strong religious beliefs and practices enhance your ability to find the moral courage you need.

Page 25

C. Leaders show loyalty to their unit by observing its rules and regulations, and its customs and traditions. Leaders demonstrate loyalty to their peers and seniors for the betterment of the unit. Leaders strive to be ethically and morally correct in what they do as individuals.

D. Leaders do not allow the organization to lose focus on its ethical and moral character. Leaders keep situations and mission requirements in perspective and are able to communicate these perspectives to their sub-ordinates. Leaders are involved in what their unit and subordinates are doing and show enthusiasm in doing their part in accomplishing tasks and missions.

 

[Kamaduck]

From the JROTC Leadership and Education and Training Manual:

Yes, it supports good morals. Doesn’t say anything about disallowing people who admit to having SSA.

There seriously would not be an issue there.

 

[Sonic]

Yes, it supports good morals. Doesn’t say anything about disallowing people who admit to having SSA.

There seriously would not be an issue there.

SSA is not the same as Homosexual. Gay = Homosexual. Moral conduct is not the same as attraction.

 

[Kamaduck]

SSA is not the same as Homosexual. Gay = Homosexual. Moral conduct is the same as attraction.

You know what? JROTC is a secular organization. We wouldn’t turn them away even if they were homosexual, although we wouldn’t be as forgiving if they were actually having sex. I’m basing that on the reaction people had to one of the straight boys who had sex with his girlfriend. We weren’t pleased.

EDIT: They still wouldn’t be kicked out, though. Reprimanded, but probably not kicked out unless they got into trouble with the school or the law.

 

[Sonic]

You know what? JROTC is a secular organization. We wouldn’t turn them away even if they were homosexual, although we wouldn’t be as forgiving if they were actually having sex. I’m basing that on the reaction people had to one of the straight boys who had sex with his girlfriend. We weren’t pleased.

So, you would agree that disapproval of all harmful sexual conduct is reasonable?

 

[Kamaduck]

So, you agree that disapproval of all harmful sexual conduct is reasonable?

100% absolutely. Though it doesn’t necessarily follow that we should kick fornicators out of all extracurriculars.

I think I’m just using the word “gay” wrong, aren’t I. Anyways, the rules should be the same for straight and gay kids. If fornication gets you kicked out of an organization, that should go for both homosexual an heterosexual sex.

 

[Sonic]

100% absolutely. Though it doesn’t necessarily follow that we should kick fornicators out of all extracurriculars.

What about openly professed pedophiles or zoophiles? Should they also be allowed to stay?

 

[Kamaduck]

What about openly professed pedophiles or zoophiles? Should they also be allowed to stay?

If they didn’t act on their desires and weren’t disruptive, yeah. Not in the administration, though. The school wouldn’t knowingly allow pedophiles into the administration anyways, so we don’t have to worry about that.

If the student caused problems, they could be kicked out. Until then, we’d think they were a little weird and/or a potential problem, but we probably wouldn’t have too many issues unless they were disruptive. If they were disruptive, they’d be given a warning first. If they broke the law, we’d reprimand them and/or kick them off of certain teams based on the fact that cadets have to uphold the law.

Now, going around saying “I like four year olds!” is disruptive. But so is constantly drawing attention to the fact that you like girls. If you’re not respectful, you’ll probably be given a twenty-minute lecture about respecting people by the SAI. Or, at the very least, get told off by yours truly.

But no, we wouldn’t kick them out if they were a responsible cadet who told us once that they found four-year-olds attractive. And I think that’s how it should be, especially since there aren’t any kids and/or animals around. Letting them volunteer at a daycare or animal shelter would be a different matter entirely.

EDIT: To clarify, any student who sexually assaulted someone would most likely be expelled from the school (and consequently from JROTC). I assumed we were talking about people who don’t act on their desires here, because doing so in this situation is illegal, and people who do really illegal things don’t get into JROTC.

But if they weren’t being disruptive or breaking the law, yes, we would let them in. If they announced it after they had been in JROTC for a while, the AI would respond however he thought was best. That’s how most things get handled with us.

 

[Sonic]

If they didn’t act on their desires and weren’t disruptive, yeah.

You seem to be equating behavior with attraction. Fornication, Pedophilia, and Zoophilia are actions and not orientations or identities. If a person isn’t doing work, then they are not workers. If a person doesn’t fornicate, then they are not fornicators.

 

[Kamaduck]

You seem to be equating behavior with attraction. Fornication, Pedophilia, and Zoophilia are actions and not orientations or identities. If a person isn’t doing work, then they are not workers. If a person doesn’t fornicate, then they are not fornicators.

Well, it would probably come down to whether they were assaulting people and/or breaking the law then. We can’t tolerate either.

EDIT: Or being generally disruptive. That’s also not OK.

… And breaking school rules, which includes ALL sexual behavior.

 

[Sonic]

Well, it would probably come down to whether they were assaulting people and/or breaking the law then. We can’t tolerate either.

EDIT: Or being generally disruptive. That’s also not OK.

So, you agree that society has the right to regulate sexual conduct because it can threaten the public’s safety and health?

 

[Kamaduck]

So, you agree that society has the right to regulate sexual conduct because it can threaten the public’s safety and health?

Well, individual organizations do. I’m just against punishing people for having desires and admitting to having them. That’s what it means to be gay a lot of the time.

 

[Sonic]

I’m just against punishing people for having desires and admitting to having them. That’s what it means to be gay a lot of the time.

So, being “gay” is about “being against punishing people for having desires and admitting to having them”?

Are you sure you don’t want to clarify that statement?

Edit: I’m just kidding. Your statement is just poorly worded.