Boy Scouts Expected to End Ban on Gay Leaders

[pnewton]

But I also see the opposite almost being applied here. Not all homosexual/ssa people are attracted to pedastry yet so many act like they all are. THAT is uncharitable.

While I know this happens, and is wrong, I do not see anyone here making that argument.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Kinsey was an immoral monster, so please don’t attempt to use his “studies” as sound science.

Yeah, not many sociologists agree with Kinsey’s data or his collection methods anymore.

 

[pnewton]

Kinsey was an immoral monster, so please don’t attempt to use his “studies” as sound science.

That Kinsey remains an authority shows just how bad our society has become.

 

[RACJ]

While I know this happens, and is wrong, I do not see anyone here making that argument.

Correct. Absolutely NO ONE here has made that argument, nor has anyone implied that it is true. Some people look to ponce on anything they perceive as possibly offensive or uncharitable.

 

[frobert]

Kinsey was an immoral monster, so please don’t attempt to use his “studies” as sound science.

That Kinsey was a monster does not debunk the Kinsey Report.

Judith Ann Reisman (April 11, 1935, Newark, New Jersey) is an American conservative academic and author, best known for her criticism and condemnation of the work and legacy of Alfred Kinsey. She has been referred to as the “founder of the modern anti-Kinsey movement”.[1] Her commentary is currently featured by the conservative WorldNetDaily and the Christian Salvo (magazine).

Source en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Reisman

Ms. Reisman has devoted much of the last two decades to her case against Kinsey. She is herself a controversial figure: in 1991, after the Kinsey Institute responded to some of her allegations, she sued for slander and defamation of character. Her suit was dismissed. With the support of fellow advocates, including the radio personality Dr. Laura Schlessinger, Ms. Reisman recently tried to place an advertisement in Variety calling Kinsey “a man who produced and directed the rape and torture of hundreds of infants and children.” She says Variety rejected it; the publication would not confirm as much.

Source: nytimes.com/2004/10/03/movies/03crai.html

It does not appear that Dr. Reisnman is taken seriously outside of the conservative press. Does the conservative press have an agenda?

If you wish to debunk the Kinsey Report do so with unbiased peer reviewed studies. In other words find fault with the report and not the person.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

But, how does one make that determination without doing so based solely on self-reporting? Last I checked, there is objective test to determine someone’s orientation. One could simply lie about their orientation and no one would know the difference.

This is true. Self-reporting can be useful but is difficult to use. The few tests which might possibly serve as an objective test of homosexuality or pederasty are problematic, invasive and demeaning to the dignity of the individual (they involve showing different forms of pornography to the test subject while measuring, crudely, for an erection) That is why we , from a youth-protection standpoint and not s strictly sociological one, have to focus primarily on behavior, not statements alone.

If someone identified as a homosexual, he most probably is.

If he says he isn’t but indulges in a homosexual act, he is, regardless of his statements.

If we don’t know and he doesn’t profess to be homosexual and attracted to children, could he be? Certainly, which is where other elements of youth safety policy come into play.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Correct. Absolutely NO ONE here has made that argument, nor has anyone implied that it is true. Some people look to ponce on anything they perceive as possibly offensive or uncharitable.

Which itself is an uncharitable act…

 

[frobert]

Yeah, not many sociologists agree with Kinsey’s data or his collection methods anymore.

How many sociologists don’t agree? Who are they? What have they published.

If you want to be taken seriously back up your opinions.

 

[josie_L]

That Kinsey was a monster does not debunk the Kinsey Report.

Yes, it does, i.e., an immoral man used immoral means by which to exact his results.

It does not appear that Dr. Reisnman is taken seriously outside of the conservative press. Does the conservative press have an agenda?

It does not appear that Kinsey is taken seriously outside of the liberal press. Does the liberal press have an agenda?

If you wish to debunk the Kinsey Report do so with unbiased peer reviewed studies. In other words find fault with the report and not the person.

Right, the unbiased peer reviewed studies that neglect to tell you how he got his results.

May 1983: Kinsey-co author, Dr. Wardell Pomeroy refuses to debate Dr. Reisman on CNN TV “Crossfire” and instead threatens to sue Dr. Reisman should she discusses Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953). On Crossfire Dr. Reisman describes her findings of child sex atrocities conducted for Kinsey’s studies. She is not sued.

May 25, 1983: News columnist Patrick Buchanan reports Dr. Reisman’s child sex abuse charges in the press. The Kinsey Institute threatens Buchanan with a libel lawsuit. Buchanan responds with “Buchanan v Kinsey Round 2,” documenting all of Reisman’s charges. He is not sued.

June 2, 1983: A Kinsey Institute press release defames Dr. Reisman and denies all charges of crimes against children committed under cover of science and the protection of Indiana University.

February 2, 1984: Press reports appear nationwide in concert with Playboy and similar materials, protesting a U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention grant to Dr. Reisman to examine child pornography and to revisit the Kinsey research. In 1993 Dr. Reisman finds evidence of The Kinsey Institute’s secret role in discrediting this research.

February 1984: Dr. Reisman is called before American University 's Institutional Review Board several times. The board forbids her to study Kinsey’s data. Evidence in 1993 finds The Kinsey Institute secret role in censoring this research.

April 1984: Dr. Reisman is called to testify for the first of three congressional hearings to challenge the Department of Justice award for this research. Evidence in 1993 finds The Kinsey Institute secretly involved in these Congressional efforts to stop the investigations.

1985: Dr. Reisman completes her study, “Images of Children, Crime and Violence in Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler,” over significant obstacles. The research is successfully used at the US Supreme Court level as well as in lower courts.

1990: Kinsey Institute Director, June Reinisch threatens to sue a radio station should Dr. Reisman be interviewed about her recent 1990 book, Kinsey, Sex & Fraud. The radio station drops Dr. Reisman’s planned interview.

1990 Dr. Reisman discovers that The Kinsey Institute is secretly circulating “confidential” defamatory materials about her, worldwide. The cover page of the 89 page tome states these “confidential” materials “are not to be attributed to the Kinsey Institute”.
Click to enlarge

1990: A nonprofit law firm offers to represent Dr. Reisman pro bono for defamation against the Kinsey Institute and June Reinisch. Although her DOJ peers approved Reisman’s findings (the past president of The American Statistical Association concluded “This is a sound study”) the secret Kinsey Institute package mailed to numerous recipients injures Dr. Reisman by falsely claiming the DOJ research is not peer approved.

December 1990, Dr. Reisman appears and handily exposes Kinsey’s child abuse culpability on “Phil Donahue.” Later Dr. Reisman discovers Donahue was threatened with a lawsuit if Dr. Reisman appears on air. He is not sued.

1991: A lawsuit for defamation is filed by Dr. Reisman against The Kinsey Institute and its (then) Director, June Reinisch.

drjudithreisman.com/the_kinsey_coverup.html

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Perhaps not so bizarre to those who have studied the Kinsey Report and similar reports.

According to your opinion of what of comprises a sexual orientation you would classify 46% of the male population as bisexual.

Do you agree that 46% is significant?

I know you are skeptical and will want to debunk the Kinsey Report, here is a good place to begin.Were Kinsey’s studies debunked?

So if 46% of the population has at one time committed a homosexual act (assuming you accept the figures of a pervert)…sounds like we should be even more cautious in whom we admit to a leadership position.

I am no more comfortable with a bisexual in such a position than a homosexual, frobert.

 

[Darryl_Revok]

So if 46% of the population has at one time committed a homosexual act (assuming you accept the figures of a pervert)…sounds like we should be even more cautious in whom we admit to a leadership position.

In all fairness, there’s a fair amount of men who have engaged in homoerotic activity who are not self-aware that it is indeed homoerotic. Like sexually-based hazing in athletic contexts, for example.

 

[frobert]

So if 46% of the population has at one time committed a homosexual act (assuming you accept the figures of a pervert)…sounds like we should be even more cautious in whom we admit to a leadership position.

I am no more comfortable with a bisexual in such a position than a homosexual, frobert.

So its your opinion that possibly up to 46% of males are bisexual?

hmmmmmmmmmm

 

[frobert]

Yes, it does, i.e., an immoral man used immoral means by which to exact his results.

In all the reviews of the Kinsey Report I read and studied none claimed he used immoral means.

It does not appear that Kinsey is taken seriously outside of the liberal press. Does the liberal press have an agenda?

Yes. The only difference between liberals and conservatives are their biases.

In the 1000s of positive reviews of the Kinsey Report that have been published I am sure some were from neither liberal nor conservative publications.

Right, the unbiased peer reviewed studies that neglect to tell you how he got his results.

Methodology is a major area of concern by peer reviewers.

Fifty years after Alfred Kinsey, what more do we know?

Kinsey’s pioneering work is still one-of-a-kind because in all the time since, only a handful of sex researchers have even tried to match his breadth, depth, and scale. …

As a pioneer in the field, Kinsey had methodological strengths. To begin with, he was a counter, to the core. He gathered his data by conducting detailed, face-to-face interviews, occasionally lasting six hours or longer, and then tabulating how many people said they did what. He was an innovator in this regard, zeroing in on behaviors (whether a person had a homosexual experience or response, for instance) rather than identities (whether a person described himself as gay). That more concrete, less subjective approach has largely endured.

Source…

drjudithreisman.com/the_kinsey_coverup.html

Did you read the article from the NY Times article I referenced above? It’s not kind to Dr. Kinsey as a person but like the NY Times article it is difficult to take Dr. Judith Reisman seriously.

 

[Darryl_Revok]

drjudithreisman.com/the_kinsey_coverup.html

I hate to attack the messenger, but anyone like Dr. Reisman who posts a huge list of perceived instances of persecution sets of huge warning sirens in my mind.

 

[Mulligan2]

I am no more comfortable with a bisexual in such a position than a homosexual

Are you saying that discrimination is acceptable in this instance, because to do otherwise would make you uncomfortable?

 

[DrTaffy]

I hate to be repetitive but one again we see the invoking of the " no true Scotsman" fallacy

You are both repetitive and misusing the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Over and over again.

Pointing out that people who are blatantly heterosexual in their relationships with adults often commit sexual offences against children of the same sex, and that such cases are in fact more common than cases of homosexuals (adults attracted to adults of the same same sex) molesting children is not the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. It is pointing out a very well known and recognized difference between child abuse and homosexuality between adults.

Rather it raises the question of why you want to dishonestly present homosexuals as being the root cause of this problem, even if this action puts children in danger.

 

[DrTaffy]

But, how does one make that determination without doing so based solely on self-reporting? Last I checked, there is objective test to determine someone’s orientation. One could simply lie about their orientation and no one would know the difference.

I assume that you mean that there is no objective test to determine someone’s orientation.

In which case I assume that the last time you checked was before this was published:
Freund, K., Watson, R., & Rienzo, D. (1989). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and erotic age preference. The Journal of Sex Research, 26 (1), 107-117.

And similair studies since.

 

[estesbob]

You are both repetitive and misusing the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Over and over again.

Pointing out that people who are blatantly heterosexual in their relationships with adults often commit sexual offences against children of the same sex, and that such cases are in fact more common than cases of homosexuals (adults attracted to adults of the same same sex) molesting children is not the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. It is pointing out a very well known and recognized difference between child abuse and homosexuality between adults.

Rather it raises the question of why you want to dishonestly present homosexuals as being the root cause of this problem, even if this action puts children in danger.

What we have seen in this thread and in our culture is that it is impossible for a homosexual to molest a boy because when they do so that proves they are really not a homosexual. Could not be a better example of the "no true Scotsman " fallacy

 

[Arizona_Mike]

So its your opinion that possibly up to 46% of males are bisexual?

hmmmmmmmmmm

No, that would be Kinsey, whom you cited. I said that if you accept his data, that should make us even more cautious.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Are you saying that discrimination is acceptable in this instance, because to do otherwise would make you uncomfortable?

I am made uncomfortable because the situation presents a risk to children. “Discrimination” in the Catholic sense (discerning between good and bad choices) is a good thing. Those of a “Progressive” mentality seem unable to recognize that the word has several meanings.