FOS just got needier?

[Jeff Lebowski]

How old are you? Have you ever heard a gay man talk about how he figured out he was gay? FYI, it never has anything to do with being "recruited" or with choosing to "go gay."

I can't believe anyone is still responding to this clown.

[Harry Tic]

How old are you? Have you ever heard a gay man talk about how he figured out he was gay? FYI, it never has anything to do with being "recruited" or with choosing to "go gay."

I don't know about you, but I was actively recruited. But they couldn't guarantee a scholarship so I elected to just walk on.

[ERCougar]

I like this argument and I'm sympathetic to it. But as to the second question you raise... Let's set aside institutional protocol, "2-deep" rules, and the like for a moment. In most camping-type settings, there are two additional variables that come into play with regard to any potentially sexual relationship between adult leader and youth: (1) age; and (2) gender and/or sexual orientation. For the vast majority of adults--gay, straight, Mormon, non-Mormon--the differences in age between an adult leader and a child (anywhere between 12 and 18) are sufficient to eliminate any real threat of a sexual encounter taking place, regardless of institutional protocols.

For some parents, differences in age, together with institutional safeguards, are sufficient to reasonably assure them that no undue risk is being run in letting Junior go camping with a gay scout leader. Other parents may insist that (1) and institutional protocols are necessary, but not sufficient, to meet their own particular standards for Junior's well being (or whatever). They insist on a further deterrent to any kind of inappropriate relationship being developed, namely, (2) that the leader's orientation is such that no particular attraction is likely to come into play even if institutional protocols and differences in age turned out to be insufficient to keep someone out of a bad situation.

I find myself more and more inclined to think that different responses to the question say more about parenting styles than they do about attitudes regarding gays.

Here's one way in which I am not sure I am persuaded by my own argument: it drives me nuts to hear about people that refuse to give a ride to a member of the opposite gender, even if it's pouring rain, etc etc. As if the mere fact of a female and a male being together in a car meant that they would have an overpowering urge to pull into the first motel they find. I don't think that the analogy holds, but I'd have to think about it to figure out why not.

Again, I agree that as a parent, you can and should have a personal set of safeguards. IMO, basing it on (declared) sexual orientation is akin to basing it on religion, socioeconomic background, or even race--it's reactionary, obtuse, and potentially hateful--but I understand that others may disagree. But we're talking institution-wide safeguards. If I were in charge of the institution, I would pick something that makes a lot more rational sense, would protect me legally, and wouldn't send a really bad unspoken message to teenage members (this is one of the more important problems, in my mind). Again, BSA can do what they want, but they risk losing my support.

[The_Douger]

No this is first about safeguarding kids and second about giving a gay leader the opportunity to tell kids that it's ok if they decide to go gay. Gay don't have the ability to propagate the next generation of gays, which requires them to actively recruit.

If everyone really believes the lie that homosexuals are 100% "born with it", you're morons. There are obviously those who just chose to go down that path, and I don't think parents are putting their kids in scouts so they can learn citizenship and gayness.

Why don't straight folks just quit having gay kids?

Why would someone choose to "go down that path", which is one of the most ridiculed, harrassed, and discriminated against in today's societ?

[New Mexican Disaster]

[quote=Blitzkrieg;920764]

That isn't true at all. You are buying the party line from the gay organizations. I don't look at the story a gay tells, I look at the evidence. Tell me exactly how your "predestined gay" theory fits with the fact that a disproportional number of sexually abused kids end up gay? Tell how bisexuals fit into your theory if one must be hot or cold to the opposite sex? How do you explain Anne Henche, who claims she was never attracted to women until she met Ellen at a party and decided to go gay, then went straight again?

This post made me go gay.

[Harry Tic]

Again, I agree that as a parent, you can and should have a personal set of safeguards. IMO, basing it on (declared) sexual orientation is akin to basing it on religion, socioeconomic background, or even race--it's reactionary, obtuse, and potentially hateful--but I understand that others may disagree. But we're talking institution-wide safeguards. If I were in charge of the institution, I would pick something that makes a lot more rational sense, would protect me legally, and wouldn't send a really bad unspoken message to teenage members (this is one of the more important problems, in my mind). Again, BSA can do what they want, but they risk losing my support.

The strength of my argument, if I may say so, is that it doesn't discriminate against any group on the basis of sexual orientation. It applies to (heterosexual) male leaders camping with females and (heterosexual) female leaders camping with males, as well as (homosexual) male leaders and male youth. (I'm bracketing the cases, for now, of those of you that have gone to girls' camp as member of a bishopric--I would still argue that those experiences are not properly analogous to the standard week-long camping trip out in the boonies with a bunch of boys).

[Harry Tic]

Blitzkrieg, I don't think you understand what this discussion is about. We're not talking about homosexuality in general.

Sorry Lebowski, you are going to have to actually think on this one, rather than rely on your fellow liberals patting you on the ass [...]

By the way, for a guy (?) adamantly opposed to homosexuality, you sure are sensitized to homosocial behavior and seem to be unusually adept at identifying and employing its rhetoric. That's not unusual.

(Remind me once again what my pink shirt (?) and scooter mean).

[The_Douger]

There is a huge support system for gays in today's society. They have plenty of support from the gay community, liberals, and even legislation which makes it worse to hurt a gay than regular old heterosexuals. Plus, studies show they are eight times more sexually active than heterosexuals, so I think there is plenty of incentive for people who lean that way at all to go gay.

Well, if you say so, it must be true. I've never seen such a study.

[Harry Tic]

Fortunately I'm here to educate you Douger. Here's the link to the aforementioned study:

http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/f...rships.12.aspx

Casual sexual encounters among Amsterdam's homosexuals had a mean of 16-28 sexual partners each year. Those who said they were in a "steady" relationship with another man were sexually involved with between 6-10 other men each year.

Contrast this with a 2007 nationwide survey in the United States found that the median number of lifetime female sexual partners reported by heterosexual men was 7 and the median number of lifetime male partners reported by heterosexual women was 4. In other words, gays in "steady" relationships sleep with as many different partners in one year as a heterosexual man or woman sleeps with in a lifetime.

Blitzkrieg, you've just made an outstanding case for gay marriage.

[The_Douger]

Sexual attitudes and behavior in this country are different than those in Amsterdam.

A nationwide survey is not very strong evidence of something being true either.

And your thoughts on the subject have absolutely nothing to do with the subject that's being discussed here, which is if you'd let your kid go with gay scout leaders on a campout.

[The_Douger]

How so? If gays continue to find new partners at a rate of 6-8 per year while in "committed" relationships, what is the value of gay marriage? By the way, similar studies find that the huge majority of new AIDS cases occur to men in supposedly committed relationships.

Douger, read my prior reply to Harry. If homosexuality is a learned behavior, I don't want gay leaders in scouts teaching homosexuality, however indirectly or inadvertently. And surveys, if conducted correctly, are excellent predictors of how things are. Just as Mitt, all the surveys leading up to election day predicted he would lose, and he did.

Mitt thought he was going to win. His surveys were off.

Homosexuality is not a learned behavior. When did you choose to be straight?

[Harry Tic]

How so? If gays continue to find new partners at a rate of 6-8 per year while in "committed" relationships, what is the value of gay marriage? By the way, similar studies find that the huge majority of new AIDS cases occur to men in supposedly committed relationships.

Douger, read my prior reply to Harry. If homosexuality is a learned behavior, I don't want gay leaders in scouts teaching homosexuality, however indirectly or inadvertently. And surveys, if conducted correctly, are excellent predictors of how things are. Just as Mitt, all the surveys leading up to election day predicted he would lose, and he did.

Let me get this straight, so to speak. If you had a choice between gay marriage with its attendant pressures--legal as well as social--to be monogamous and faithful (and even making unfaithfulness a legally actionable matter) and the current climate--as you allege--that encourages or at least tolerates promiscuity (and, per Douger, I think the data you cite would have to be looked at very closely to determine if it's even relevant), you would still prefer more promiscuity to less. That is just weird.

And, with regard to your attempt to turn this discussion into a referendum on whether homosexuality is most learned or mostly inherent, that's an absolute waste of time and has nothing to do with the discussion. The question is whether or not one's orientation should have a bearing on one's eligibility to direct campouts and such. That discussion is not connected to the point you want to make about the origins of homosexuality in any interesting way.

[wuapinmon]

Harry, I'm pretty sure I do understand what this discussion is about, and at its foundation this discussion is built on the apparently forum-wide accepted assumption that homosexuality is intrinsic in a kid rather than simply a risky behavior that can be adopted or abandoned. I disagree with the intrinsic assumption. I believe many kids who engage in homosexual behavior do so simply because they have friends or role models or so much media telling them its cool, that they give it a try. As a result, I support the BSAs stance on homosexual leaders, because these leaders can't but help promote their own lifestyle as an acceptable path for kids to take. That and its unamerican to dictate what values a values-based organization promotes within its own ranks.

[The_Douger]

Douger, all of the reputable national survey houses predicted Obama winning. I'm talking about companies like Rasmussen, Gallop, Pew, and the like who pay close attention to the methodology of their surveys. Mitt never disclosed any internal poll data that you allege he was banking on. Have you ever had a statistics class? This is pretty basic stuff and I'm surprised you are questioning it.

I sure have. That's why I'm calling you out on a survey.

When did you choose to be straight?

[Harry Tic]

When it comes to promiscuity I agree that less is better than more, but I don't know see any evidence that legalizing gay marriage would flip a switch to make an otherwise committed gay couple less promiscuous, if the majority are already clearly engaged in an open, or very deceitful, relationship.

Wow, how can I say this any more clearly? The nature of homosexuality matters because kids can be encouraged or discouraged from that lifestyle. Scouting, or at least the parents who put their kids in scouting, aren't likely seeking that life outcome for their kids.

What do you mean that you don't see any evidence that legalizing gay marriage would reduce promiscuity? What kind of evidence would it take to convince you? I suspect that you're not interested in evidence one way or the other.

And, as for the second point, nobody in this thread is talking about the origins of homosexuality. I think that we all agree that it would be bad for a kid to have some kind of precocious sexual experience with a leader, independent of any concerns about whether that experience would play some kind of defining role in shaping their future sexual orientation. That's a separate point and a separate discussion. And one that I think is pointless to have here.