Can Boy Scouts overcome bias?
By Larry Gebhardt
Richard Larsen laments (ISJ Feb 24, 2013) that Boy Scouts are being bullied by individuals and organizations who disagree with Boy Scouts’ biased exclusion of homosexuals.
Larsen suggests that homosexuality is a choice that is ‘avowed.’ It is a biological, scientific reality much as Larsen and I are Caucasian men or left handed. Larsen says homosexuals are less than 3 percent of the population. Gallup polls show many Americans think that one in five, 20 percent, of people they know are homosexual.
Charles Darwin said, “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.” Bias is an inflexible belief about a particular kinship group. Bigotry is retaining biases despite receiving contrary authoritative information. Think about Ku Klux Klan bias toward blacks. Bias is not good. In organizations the price of bias is litigation and damaged reputation, lost employees or volunteers, diminished sales and lost customers, and wasted time.
The Girl Scouts, United States armed forces, 86 percent of Fortune 500 firms, and a growing number of churches and other organizations, have moved past exclusion or disrespect of homosexuals. They have adapted. We will see if the Boy Scouts or the Klan adapt or remain bigoted.
Why do we contract biases like homophobia? Humans seem to have an immune deficiency that deep down we believe biases benefit us in some ways. One of these alleged benefits is that biases magically give us the ability to anticipate the attitudes, character, and behaviors of people different from ourselves. Some people biased against blacks or Muslims would feel emotional fear when seeing a black stranger or Muslim garb on the sidewalk. If we have anxieties about homosexuals, and don’t know any personally, our bias virus helps us to disrespect what we assume homosexuals do in their private lives or justifies fearing them. Would we have similar feelings about heterosexuals like our neighbors or parents or a different Christian denomination person?
Bias virus spreads. We often learn biases from authority figures and role models in our families, religions and work groups who tell us we’ll benefit from the bias. For many years, the US Navy told me that homosexual people were not fit for service and women not fit for combat. The biased belief told me that military units would be degraded if women or homosexuals were included. Larsen claims Boy Scouts will avoid pederasty not by screening adult leaders but by excluding homosexual boys.
Boys can start in scouting when 6 years old. Scouting teaches many skills and good values. But If boys are socialized by scouting role models stating homosexuals are sub-human and never meet homosexuals, then it is little wonder they enter adult life with homophobic bias. We know there is discrimination and bullying of homosexuals in Pocatello to the point of after-dark assaults. Was homosexual bias learned in scouting? Media spreads bias virus because of its passion for exaggerating reality with inflated dangers and disrespect. Think of the Larry Craig airport restroom drama. Biased Pocatellans are distributing hateful letters with titles like ‘unmasking the gay agenda’ and ‘say no to the bathroom bill.’
Individuals and organizations can beat the bias virus. A first step is to be mindful of our biases by analyzing our thoughts and measuring their emotional content. If I get riled up by a human difference, I may be biased. This bias detection can lead to a strategy to be more indifferent to biases.
My personal awareness of homophobic bias and path away from bias began when I had opportunity to share a family meal with two gay men, and subsequently with two lesbian women. Their normalcy and competence made me question years of career military claims that homosexuals were not fit for military duty. My mind changed, my bias became tolerance. I studied scientifically-based information then advocated Department of Defense policy change accepting homosexual people to full service opportunities.
If Boy Scouts cannot work and socialize with homosexual people in their organization, then how would Boy Scouts hired in business work collegially with homosexual people? We would rather hire unbiased employees.
Changes in USA public policy and law are steadily removing barriers and discrimination to allow inclusion of all people in American life. There is no reason why Boy Scouts cannot go through a similar discernment.
Our community will be better when inclusive of all people. That’s why I’m pushing for a Pocatello anti-discrimination ordinance. Right, Mayor Blad? I was a Boy Scout and leader as were my boys. We tolerated the Boy Scout position but no longer. I will not give a dime to Boy Scouts until they adaptively change and officially drop homosexual bias.
Larry Gebhardt of Pocatello is a retired Navy captain.
Larry, it’s regrettable that to advance a logically untenable position that you feel compelled to a) ignore fact in favor of your biased predisposition, (confirmation bias logical fallacy), and b) to misrepresent counter arguments (my column, which you referenced inaccurately) that are fact-based (straw man logical fallacy). Your premises and arguments are invalidated logically when based on logical fallacies.
First, let’s look at how I used the term “avowed.” Here is the quote from my piece, “The recently announced review of the Boy Scouts of America policies, which reject avowed homosexuals from membership, provides a case study in collective bullying and intimidation of a quality organization dedicated to instilling character in its members.” Clearly, the BSA can only presently exclude those who professedly avow that they are homosexual. There is no “test” for homosexuality, they can only exclude those who claim they are.
Number two, not only did you take the term out of context from my column, but you were in error factually for how you erroneously employed it. All people have certain inclinations, or tendencies, but they are not what their inclinations lead them to do or be, until they act. One inclined to pederasty is not a pederast until, or unless, he chooses to engage in such behavior. An arsonist is not one until he decides to act on his impulse. The choice to action determines the whether one is what they are inclined or predisposed to be. Therefore, it’s always a choice. One does not have to be a pederast just because he’s attracted to little children, and he does not become one until he decides to engage in such behavior.
Number three, it’s immensely ironic that you’d quote Charles Darwin, “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.” To illustrate the absurdity of your analogy in this context, consider what happens to the species if the entire population was homosexual. There would be no survival of the species! He was talking in biological terms, the consequence of which, in your absurd context, would destroy the species. Even the politically correct perspective being forced on society, which you represent, undermines the biological and cultural building block of society: the nuclear family.
Number four, contrary to your assertion, none of this is evidentiary of “homophobia,” since it has nothing to do with a purported “fear of homosexuals,” nor is it bigotry. It’s fact based. Neither I, nor anyone I know, harbors any animus or fear, or hate, of homosexuals. We love (agape), interact with, and work with them. What is to fear? Many do, however, detest the radical agenda, which you represent, which is forcing societal changes in our culture that does challenge the foundation of our society. Which brings us to the next point, the percentage of the population that is homosexual.
There is a wide disparity between the facts regarding the percentage of the population that is homosexual, rather than your anecdotal “polls” that many Americans “think” that one in five are homosexual. Many Americans “think” Obama is doing a good job, but that does not make it true, especially when empirical evidence proves to the contrary. That’s a convenient, albeit non-factual, and non-empirical, assertion, especially since the prevailing myth of the population, started in 1948, was 10%. Inflation of anecdotal indications of what Americans think hardly make for viable, reliable, or compelling evidence.
The 10% myth may have been started to advance a pro-homosexual agenda, and to more readily (and quickly) mainstream this activity within society, by inflating the true percentage of homosexuals within society to a number that was far higher than their actual percentage within the total population. Most Americans readily believe the 10% myth, and its time to set the record straight: that homosexuals only constitute between 1 to 3% of the population.
1. Studies indicate that homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3% of the population. ( J. Gordon Muir, “Homosexuals and the 10% fallacy, “Wall Street journal ( March 31, 1993).
2. Contrary to estimates claiming that 10% of the American male population is homosexual, only “a very small number” of respondents reported that they were homosexual or bisexual. ” 98% of the sample reported they were heterosexual.” (Barbara C. Leigh ” The Sexual Behavior of U.S. Adults: Results From a National Survey” American journal of Public Health. Vol. 83, Page(s) 1400-1406.)
3. A coalition of 31 pro-homosexual activist groups submitted a friend of the court brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in the Lawrence v. Texas case in 2003, claiming that 2.8% of men and 1.4% of women are homosexual.
4. In a survey of studies on homosexuals in different populations, The Archives of Sexual Behavior reported a random sample of Hawaii state residents interviewed by telephone. The study found “just about 3% of males and 1.2% of females as having engaged in same-sex or bisexual activity.” ( Milton Diamond, “Homosexuality and Bisexuality in Different Populations,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 22 (1993): 300)
5. A study of the sexual behavior of men in the U.S. based on the National Survey of Men (A nationally representative sample comprised of 3,321 men aged 20-39) found that 2% of men aged 20-39 had had any same-gender activity during the last ten years. Approximately 1% of the men (1.3% among whites and 0.2% among blacks) reported having had exclusively homosexual activity. (John O. G. Billy, “The Sexual Behavior of Men in the United States, “Family Planning Perspectives 25 (March/April 1993): 58)
6. The percentage of men claiming to be homosexual is far less than Alfred Kinsey’s claims(later retracted) that 10% of American Males were homosexual and that 37% of men had some homosexual experience during their life. The National Survey of Men reports that “2.3% of men. aged 20-39, have had “same gender sexual activity during the preceding ten years” and that “1.1% have had such activity exclusively.” In addition, “the majority of men who have had homosexual contact report that such contact occured ‘once, twice or rarely for less than 2 years. (The National Survey of Men) (Stuart H. Seidman, And Ronald O. Reider) “A Review of Sexual Behavior in the United States” The American Journal of Psychiatry Vol. 151 1994 page(s) 330-339)
7. Current studies estimate that between 1.8 to 3% of the male population consider themselves to be homosexual with the rate for females at 1.5% ( Herral, R (1999) A Co-Twin Control Stduy in Adult Men” Archives of General Psychiatry. 56, 10: 867-874)
In addition, studies by John H. Gagnon, Edward O. Laughmann, and others show, as well, that homosexuals and lesbians constitute between 1 to 3% of the population. The 10% myth was a distortion started by Alfred Kinsey in 1938-1948. Kinsey later retracted that percentage and accepted that homosexuals make up only 1 to 4% of the total population.
And finally, you misquoted me again. “Larsen claims Boy Scouts will avoid pederasty not by screening adult leaders but by excluding homosexual boys.”
Here is what I really said, including the research to validate it. “What’s at stake is the emotional and physical welfare of over 2.7 million young men in the Scouting program. Currently, even with some infractions of leader/Scout contact policy, over 98% of Scouts feel “safe” within the Scouting organization, according to a Harris poll a few years ago. Statistically, that’s probably much higher than how many young people feel safe in their own homes.
Rescission of the ban clearly places those young men at risk. In a peer-reviewed research piece printed in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, researchers Marie E. Tomeo, Donald I. Templer, Susan Anderson, and Debra Kotler, made some striking conclusions. The abstract to their research, Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescence Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons, states, “In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation.” The likelihood of significantly increased pederasty involving those 2.7 million young men is virtually assured if the BSA yields to the corporate and politically correct bullying that threatens their core values.”
I had once thought you to be an honest and straightforward man. I am sadly compelled, based on your consistent misrepresentations in this piece, to reassess that judgment.
Mr. Gebhardt,
I have got a bunch of acquaintances that I just have to have come live with you permanently. That will cure you of finding bias where none exists.
Unfortunately in this world we have to look at things and people and decide whether or not we want to associate with them or do the things they do. That’s not bias, that’s called using common sense. That part of society does nothing that I would consider engaging in but in doing so, I’m biased? Nope, not even close.
If the Boy Scouts welcome this part of society into their ranks they go the route that JCPenny is going right now. They chose their side and now society is rewarding them by not taking their business there. But blame the CEO for not having sales?
So, write a law to demand that all people have to buy at JCPenny. Talk to Obama he knows how to write a lot of things like that.
Sorry but I wouldn’t trust my children to people like this, given what I’ve come to know about them over the years. I’d be beyond foolish and an irresponsible parent.
Sitting watching gays take over a couple of denominations nationally. They aren’t doing well, not even close. But they’re not biased? Looks like some of their old members, just might be, though. They’re leaving in large numbers and not returning, biased or not?
We used to refer to it as common sense, apparently it’s an endangered property forbidden by law any more. Anyone employing it in their life is now called, biased, racist, etc.
No, the day where we have to accept everything weird that goes on as “normal” is the day we cease being human and go back to our simian roots or worse. Has nothing to do with sub-human, whatever that might be. Just not socially worth considering.
Excellent article Mister Gebhart for advancing once again the cause of humanity. Larsen is a real hoot. His argument brings to mind all the hopla against the Civil Rights Bill.
The basic argument against buying the idea, “All men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights…” We all know of course that the Klan and others justified their behavior and persecution by the argument that Blacks are not men at all. That they are a subspecies below the white man and therefore
a different criteria applies to them. Something along the lines of animal abuse laws.
So the greater part of America has changed. But not everyone.Their are still many suffering fron a severe lack of education in Anthropology. They may have made it through the basic fifth grade literacy malange, but that is where their maturity level ended. They drifted off into quasi-mystical religious
indoctrination, defining who they are from external reinforcement such as homophobia which states simply that marriage is between a man and a woman. It says so in the Bible and therefore it is god’s truth. And so in effect it is god’s truth and the letters of Paul to the Romans, which saw homasexuality as blasphemous. Even though categorically it had been part of ancient culures.
For today we can say that for one man to tell another that he loves him sends shudders of fear to the listeners. Because they are dwarfed in their definitions of love. That love can only exist between two people of the opposite sex and for two people of the same sex to profess love is sinful.
The question is was Lucretius or Pliny more advanced in their social thinking and that Classicm itself was dwarfed by Christianity and civilization itself put on hold until Galileo stunned the Christian world with his outlandish theory that the Sun is the center of the solar system, and the earth merely revolves around it. What a perposterous idea.
I think it might be more beneficial to focus on the murderous mayhem of homophobics. The murderous values of the Puritans are the real heritage of Christian America. Do we hang or burn people for their beliefs? How do we implement the practise of social ostracism.
Larsen and his crew could write a very large volume with first hand experience on that one.
Ostracism. Being deprived of the rights of community. Very ugly indeed.
Ostracism? the act of excluding someone from society by general consent. Like an entire city being run into the wilderness in the middle of the winter? Indeed very ugly. That kind of general consent? Being deprived of home, property without anyone defending your rights? With an extermination order on your collective heads, that kind of ostracism?
Don’t want to be a socially acceptable part of the community but the community has to put up with you? You can stay, winter or summer, by the way. Nobody wants to see you perform your proclivity. And that’s ostracism, no that’s common sense of the best kind.
You want to be part of the community, clean up your act? Keep your private business, private.
This sort of thinking, that anything opposed to homosexual behavior is “bias,” is a classic case of modern chauvinism. So how is one a modern chauvinist? Here are 20 ways (only somewhat tongue-in-cheek):
1. Believe that humanity is constantly getting better, and that each new era of history is better than the last. Progress is inevitable.
2. Refer to any previous age that valued religion, cultural conformity, and family values as a “dark age,” “ignorant,” or “intolerant.”
3. View scientific naturalism as “rational” and “open-minded,” while anything metaphysical or religious is “childish,” “naive,” or “stupid.”
4. Believe that the chief source of the ills of the world is religion, “intolerance,” or “unenlightenment.”
5. Believe that every individual is autonomous, and that social and family virtues are “outdated.”
6. Distrust any ancient source because it lacks modern “precision” or skepticism. In Christianity, this means that the modern historian knows more than the church fathers, Greco-Roman historians, or Jewish sources because he is more “rational” and has the latest discoveries.
7. In the arts, if you are populist, emphasize the 60′s, “indie”, and Andy Warhol. If you are an elitist, emphasize John Cage and Jackson Pollock. A combination of the two views is preferred.
8. Related to number 7, if art is “conventional,” “classical,” paleo anything, religious, traditional, or western, view it as “boring,” “regressive,” “irrelevant,” “unoriginal” or “oppressive.” By contrast, any art that is “shocking,” “provocative,” “activist,” “subversive,” “innovative,” or politically relevant is automatically genuine, inspired, relevant, and true artistry.
9. Re-interpret western cultural history in lieu of number 8.
10. Secular, egalitarian democracy based on an ever-increasing list of individual “rights” (the individual is autonomous, remember?) is the ultimate and perfect form of government. Any sort of hierarchy, religious system, or previous form of government is simply “anti-progress” and “bigoted.”
11. Make sure you label those who oppose you with anti-intellectual or politically expedient stereotypes, including but not limited to: bigot, hick, racist, ethnocentric, xenophobic, homophobic, backwater, dark aged, anti-learning, anti-progress, anti-education etc…
12. Make sure “love” = moral license, but moral laws = intolerance. Especially use this to undermine traditional, orthodox, Christianity.
13. Related to number 12, make sure that “progressive Christians” that agree with you on many of these points are labeled “true loving Christians,” but traditionalists are considered “bigoted” or even better, “militant fundamentalist.” After all, an orthodox Christian should always be grouped with a militant Muslim, right?
14. “Separation of Church and State” is your personal religion. Anything else makes one a Fascist or Theocrat.
15. Make sure you bring up Hitler whenever possible as an example of “the extreme right.”
16. Make sure that all previous western history is understood to be “Patriarchal,” “oppressive,” and “colonialist.” Make sure that those that are from the Christian and classical west hate their heritage and embrace “multiculturalism,” “democracy,” and “pluralism” as true enlightenment. This is especially important in the education system as the young are prepared to be global citizens.
17. To ensure this hasn’t been forgotten, again, always use labels such as “hate,” “intolerance,” “racist,” “homophobic,” and others as much as possible to silence opposition, especially in reference to Christians and western traditionalists. Again, make sure an increasing list of individual “rights” is considered love. If possible, accuse someone who disagrees as “self-loathing.”
18. Fulfillment is found in being true to yourself, expressing yourself, and making yourself happy. If you feel confused or unfulfilled about this, please seek someone truly scientific like a psychiatrist. Never become pious! Anyone who finds religion is “weak.”
19. Make clear that while we can have precision and certainty on anything naturalistic, anything based on a Scripture or orthodox faith is “full of contradictions” because it lacks this precision.
20. Finally, if you are feeling “down,” “depressed,” or “disillusioned,” with the enlightenment outlined above, and modern psychology hasn’t worked, do one of two things: Find a ton of hobbies to make yourself “busy” and be constantly entertained, or give up that you can know anything at all and embrace nothingness.
5 more ways can be found here:
http://hayesworldview.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/even-more-ways-to-be-a-modern-chauvinist/
I have read Rick Larson’s column coupled with Larry Gephardt’s regarding the BSA.
I find amusing the hubris of vernacular employed to provoke an emotional response to support contrary positions with false premise in arguments from both.
Both Larson and Gephardt have achieved in their missives to the public subsequent posts of intended emotional responses that have proven to look beyond the mark.
To read Larry Gebhardt’s comments, one is led to believe he somehow experienced some sort of awakening of conscious or a miraculous conversion and now considers himself a repentant ex-member of an organization akin to the Ku Klux Klan.
Gebhardt’s statement of equating the Boy Scouts of America to the Ku Klux Klan has to be the most ridiculous and pathetic statement ever printed in the history of the Idaho State Journal and perhaps in the history of periodical publication.
Rick Larson’s assertion that one reason the BSA cannot adopt a position of openly gay leaders is because homosexuals have a greater propensity to engage in predatory and grooming practices of pedophilia that exposes youth to greater risk for abuse is likewise a falsehood that only stokes bias and prejudice.
As someone who has worked several sex abuse cases with some of the foremost experts on the pathology of sex offenders, I can tell you statistically heterosexual sex offenders far outnumber homosexual sex offenders during my career in the criminal justice system.
Gebhardt’s cognitive dissonance is akin to what afflicts many in society who lack emotional intelligence in matters of simple and honest differences of opinion or perspectives born of principle which is not the same as malicious bias and prejudice. Many can’t grasp the concept that disagreement based on values or principles is not the same as the contextual meaning of bias and prejudice which infers intolerance or lack of forbearance despite honest disagreement with no malicious intent to exclude.
The word exclusion is a two way street. I have friends and acquaintances who have different lifestyles than I. I don’t feel they exclude me nor do they feel I exclude them when we choose to engage in aspects of our lifestyle that do not coincide. This is especially true of my friends and acquaintances as well as family members who are gay.
Another personal example: I’m a former member of the GOP upon experiencing aspects of the local and State GOP I simply can’t support on principle.
I’m not excluded. I simply have chosen to exclude myself from something I simply cannot support in terms of leadership and philosophy in applying certain principles. There is a dichotomy of being excluded born of bias and prejudice versus choosing to be excluded which has nothing to do with bias and prejudice of others.
I’m a lifelong supporter of the BSA. That does not equate to being anti-gay which would be a premise of Gebhardt in his world of false choices.
I also support pragmatically civil union (not to be confused with marriage) which does not equate to an endorsement of the homosexual lifestyle or support of it which would be the false premise of many folks who are quite frankly anti-gay.
I have friends and family members who have made the conscious choice based upon the propensity to same gender attraction to embrace the homosexual lifestyle. I disagree on principle. I recognize they have proclivity to same sex attraction beyond the current mortal understanding of science to date. Theologically, I also know I must be tolerant and exercise forbearance. Therefore, I still accept and support them as part of my life based upon the reconciling of the principles of agency and forbearance required on my part if trying to truly apply tenants of the Scout Oath and Law as well as the tenatns of my faith.
Both Larson and Gebhardt have completely overlooked one important point in their collective defense and persecution of the organization:
The BSA already encompasses time tested principles and tenants of the organization that appropriately addresses the social issues regarding sexual orientation that our youth must confront. The Scout Oath and Law contain time tested principles that actually encourage application of tolerance, respect, and forbearance. The organizations and individuals that seek endorsement and support of the gay lifestyle by the BSA simply do not recognize the organization already accepts them and exercises forbearance. There is no need to gain endorsement of the BSA for a lifestyle to achieve the perceived lack of tolerance they contend.
If that is not sufficient, then the only exclusion being exercised is one of self-exclusion by the gay community that cannot exercise tolerance and forbearance of those organizations that simply don’t endorse the lifestyle. Gebhardt and the gay community are confusing endorsement as equating to tolerance. The most constructive route would be to simply organize and start a youth organization that best fits their choice of lifestyle instead of persecuting the BSA for its lack of endorsement of their lifestyle.
Larson and others need to quit creating stigma that gays have a greater propensity to be sex offenders than heterosexuals which does create unwarranted bias and prejudice that drives persecution of the gay community.
Larson and Gebhardt have simply presented a microcosm of the societal lack of emotional intelligence and unbalanced justification of positions based upon false premises that create false choices among sectors of society that have honest and sincere disagreement that cannot be reconciled; but must be accepted on common ground in order for the tenants of personal freedom as well as freedom of association to ultimately be protected.
Jayson, your comments were the ones made with a “hubris of vernacular” in attacking both arguments, fallaciously, while offering little but platitudes from your self-perceived perch of superiority. That part of your post was really funny!
But you’re going to have to provide examples of “the hubris of vernacular employed to provoke an emotional response to support contrary positions with false premise in arguments” on my part. My column from two weeks ago, as well as my response to Larry above, is DEVOID of emotive language. If you’re going to make an accusation, you’d better have the evidence. The only possible applicability was my use of the buzz word from the anti-family groups of “bullying.” But even that was employed logically (hypocritically on their part), rather than emotionally.
And my premises were based on fact and data. If those are “false premises,” as you assert, you’re going to have to show how those are false. Otherwise, your words ring as hollow as your presumptive air of superiority, which was so evident with your post.
And while you’re at it, please illustrate how I “looked beyond the mark.” Either one is in favor of the BSA rescinding their current policy, or one is not. I spoke clearly to the issue, logically, and with empirical evidence, yet somehow that’s to be understood as “looking beyond the mark?” It could only qualify as such if one has an aversion or incompetence with logic, common sense, and empirical data.
And speaking of which, you make the claim, “Larson (sic) and others need to quit creating stigma that gays have a greater propensity to be sex offenders than heterosexuals which does create unwarranted bias and prejudice that drives persecution of the gay community.”
You obviously either didn’t read my piece, or my argument above, or you reject peer-reviewed research. Assuming the prior, let me restate:
“Rescission of the ban clearly places those young men at risk. In a peer-reviewed research piece printed in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, researchers Marie E. Tomeo, Donald I. Templer, Susan Anderson, and Debra Kotler, made some striking conclusions. The abstract to their research, Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescence Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons, states, “In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation.” The likelihood of significantly increased pederasty involving those 2.7 million young men is virtually assured if the BSA yields to the corporate and politically correct bullying that threatens their core values.”
Since you seem oblivious to the implications of that data, let me help you out. Most studies conclude that between 56-80% of those who are abused as children continue the cycle. Is this really something we want to infuse the BSA with, or expose those kids to? Or is this just “looking beyond the mark?” I think it’s right on the mark, and the very facts the BSA should be looking at with regard to their policy.
What you call “creating stigma” is nothing more than approaching the issue with objectivity, logic, and data. It would appear that you can’t handle the truth, and would much prefer to classify all arguments, pro or con, as “emotional,” or “looking beyond the mark” whether applicable or not. That anyone would argue against the logical approach to this issue, as you have done, I find unconscionable. Your only saving grace was that you didn’t seem to buy into the radical agenda that Larry advances. But that’s hardly comforting when you hurl fallacious accusations, rather than following logic and reason.
Your nonfactual, and specious post was not a favorable reflection on you, my friend. And by the way, I’m Danish, not Swedish. Larsen, not Larson.
And as for how this applies to the city “non-discrimination” ordinance the case against was well argued by the former Pastor from Aberdeen, Monty Ledford. He said, “This is unlike racial or color discrimination because the minority is constituted by people who indulge in certain behaviors. We have other minorities like that: smokers, the obese, cat owners, drug takers. These activities are looked down upon by other portions of the population, even publicly discriminated against (“For Rent: No Pets or Smokers”) and are even publicly encouraged to change their practices — do they deserve special laws prohibiting discrimination?
This is unlike racial or color discrimination because it is entirely self-defined. If someone proclaims that he is “gay” or “transgendered,” does this place him or her in the protected group?
It is unlike racial discrimination because people can move from category to category — a person can first call herself lesbian, then decide later that she is bisexual, etc.
Calling it a “sexual minority” makes it even worse. Other sexual minorities are polygamists, the incestuous, prostitutes and their johns. Will such a law prohibit discrimination against these practices? If not, why not? Why are some entitled to “rights” and others not?”
In other words, it’s ludicrous!
Richard, I thought the same thing about Jayson’s post. His inaccurate representation of your comments and article was only exceeded by his own arrogance and holier-than-thou attitude.
Larry’s article fit his description to a tee, however. They only way they can succeed in advancing their agenda is by appealing to emotion, and misrepresenting protection of minors and support of the family by calling it bias, or homophobia, or discrimination.
I was impressed with what the Aberdeen pastor said. He’s right on! I hope the city council will have the brains and the backbone to reject this agenda-driven proposal.
Well now. Who’s the bully and who’s being bullied remains up in the air, to which, the flame wars will ever commence. Ah, but I’m being self-righteous on my own perch of holiness. I’m fine with that since my chair is comfortable.
Bullies and comfortable don’t go in the same space. Perhaps if you moved a tad intellectually and admitted both can’t be right?
Rick:
I’m afraid you have fallen into what is commonly referred to as an assumptive posture of unrighteous judgment of my personal character due to my honest disagreement in the manner in which you have chosen to defend the BSA. An overall defense of the BSA that I actually share with you, albeit from a different posture.
I stand by my critique of both you and Gebhardt.
You both employed specific vocabulary as provocateurs to illicit an emotional response from the community and readership that polarizes rather than galvanizes pragmatic consensus where irreconcilable views born of principle and values from different sides of the issue are not unduly infringed upon.
“Self-perceived perch of superiority.”
Anyone who really knows me and who I am will tell you I’m far from considering myself superior to anyone else.
Quite the contrary, I’m pretty self-aware of my personal faults and am probably far more critical of myself to a fault as well.
I’m also not afraid to speak my mind with the understanding that everyone in this world has one thing in common: an opinion.
I fully recognize you may be offended, bothered, or simply disagree with me; but that does not constitute that I harbor a self-perceived perch of superiority. I’m superior to no one. That is my self-perceived perch if you will from which I view and arrive at my opinions and conclusions.
Besides, the discussion should be about the issue; not the assumptive character assassination of the individual with whom you disagree.
My position is a high road defense of the BSA based on the very principles and values encapsulated within the organization itself. When those principles of the Scout Oath and Law are properly applied and balanced, it presents a true defense of the organization on what it stands for which is not exclusion as alleged by those who seek to superimpose their agenda.
You looked beyond the mark because you defended the BSA without employing the enduring values and principles it stands for in its defense; but rather mortal science as a passive aggressive measure to denigrate those whose lifestyle you and I disagree with in terms of some moral values we have in common.
For every scientific study of peer review within the practice of a specific discipline, with “practice of” being the key words, that supports one hypothesis or theory there is always a counter study likewise vetted by peer review to support a contrary point of view.
As I stated before, I have worked extensively with some of the foremost authorities that deal with pedaphilia as prosecuted in the criminal justice system that point to contrary views based on the practice of specialized psychiatry that works with sex offenders in society.
The inference that the homosexual population has a greater propensity to harbor sex offenders than the heterosexual population is irrelevant to the issue of intolerance on the part of the gay community towards the Boy Scouts that actually promotes tolerance and forbearance as I stated before to all members of society regardless of lifestyle of choice.
I don’t have a position on the publicized ordinance being proposed in Pocatello. I have not really looked closely at the issue to offer an opinion from my “self-perceived perch of superiority.”
I do know the City of Salt Lake some time ago considered an anti-discrimination ordinance that included sexual orientation with the support of the LDS Church if memory serves. However, I have not seen the content of what is being proposed in Pocatello.
I’m not familiar with the pastor’s comments from Aberdeen.
It appears the good pastor is insinuating it is OK to not apply tenants of Christianity that foment forbearance and tolerance while abiding by moral principles, which is always a two way street. If forbearance and tolerance were properly applied, there probably would not be the overriding desire to legislate special protections.
I do agree that sexual orientation is a behavior of choice which does not merit minority status or special protections. No should those who disagree with the lifestyle choice be forced to endorse or accept the lifestyle that infringes upon their sincerely held prinicples.
However, I also know that when society at large does not apply proper forbearance, individuals or groups that experience intolerance tend to seek redress via what we see before the city council.
My question is what is the underlying need for such an ordinance? Would the ordinance make the homosexual community safer or more tolerated than now? Regardless of the issue, I think we need to take a few steps back and ask ourselves would the making of a law or ordinance necessarily achieve a desired outcome?
I say this because we have an awful lot of laws on the books from the local to federal jurisdictions that are virtually impossible to enforce and probably have not garnered the desired outcomes intended when they were enacted regardless of the issue the laws seek to address.
Jayson, I fell into no trap. I have no problem with disagreement. But when statements are made carte blanche with no evidence provided, your whole missive conveys an attitude of superiority, while no genuine distinction is provided. Your post was assessed on its content, not on your content. And it provided no evidence supporting your claim.
I await your presentation of actual language I employed which was designed to evoke emotion.
I understand what you’re saying about the BSAs values. And I concur, that the foundation of the organization is in their values. But the only one of their values that is being contested, at present, is allowing avowed homosexuals to be a part of their organization. All the rest of what you say of their values is true, but uncontested.
My whole argument was 1) legally, they have the right to exclude possible participants from their ranks; 2) one of their core principles is safety of those involved; and 3) based on empirical data, (and common sense) the safety of their young members is jeopardized by rescinding their current policy.
I could well counter that you have “looked beyond the mark,” since you’ve opined beyond what is being deliberated. What you say is true, but it’s of no value in repulsing the bullying efforts to force them into compliance with political correctness.
Your person experiences are interesting, but anecdotal.
And you look beyond the mark again with regards to the former pastor’s comments. Where in any of his comment did he mention Christianity? His was a purely logical dissection of the illogical ordinance being considered by the council.
I would take your comments about tolerance further. We as a people and as a nation have every right to expect that we would be tolerant of those who are “different,” in any way. Such tolerance should not be confused with acceptance of the radical agenda, conducted in their name, to completely reshape the foundations of culture, society, and the organizations within it. That has nothing to do with tolerance, but much to do with logic, reason, and ethics.
Boy Scout Oath:
On my honor, I will do my best
To do my duty to God (“GOD” may have to be taken out)and my country and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally (MORALLY fore sure has to go!)straight.
BOY SCOUT LAW:
A Scout is:
Trustworthy,(you won’t try try to hit on one of us will you?)
Loyal,
Helpful,
Friendly,
Courteous,
Kind,
Obedieent,
Cheerful,
Thrifty,
Brave,
Clean, (may have to be removed depending on what is ment by clean?)
and Reverent.
Jim
Redneck,
If my dad were here, he would remind me that “clean” meant that I had to keep my Lego’s organized – to prevent the occasional bare foot from walking on a single piece in the middle of the night. I swear, before I was allowed to have my court of honor for my Eagle, I had to throw those things away.
Yes, this goes back to the 1980s in the book, After the Ball – How America will Conquer its Fear & Hatered in the 90s by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madisen. The book is a step by step guide to indoctrinate straight America to total acceptance of homosexuality as simply another life style. The book is an “introduction to the permanent crisis of American homosexuality”. One section is called “Solutions; Driving the Wedge.” Another is Good Propaganda. Yet other is “Tactics for Eating the Media Alive”. It is an enlightening book about what the plan is and how it is enacted.
You might also find this article interesting:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=457
There is an article also from the
An article by Dennis Prager from Town Hall.Com that is one of the better explanations of the damage this does to the structure of the family and to the very idea of man and women being fundamentally different:
http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2010/08/17/same-sex_marriage_and_the_insignificance_of_men_and_women/page/full/
Good article, Patriot. Thanks.