Scouting’s suicide

[Hugh Victor Thompson III]

FKA Reader wrote:

<quoted text>
Being gay does not require fornication.

It's also not regarded as being morally straight by many people.

[Hugh Victor Thompson III]

FKA Reader wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you suggesting that the BSA is rife with homosexuals?
We are not talking about some individuals carrying out their own policies. We are talking about national policy that covered decades.

I was referring to the American Catholic hierarchy. Note that the Church made a point of declaring in '80s that only homosexual behavior was immoral, and that celibate gays were not in conflict with the Church. You think they did that just for the parishioners...?

[-tip-]

FKA Reader wrote:

<quoted text>
Until very recently the required reporting was to Children's Services or to the Police. And frankly, the folks who wrote those laws weren't particularly contemplating abuse by teachers, but rather by parents and family members.
In the last 3-4 years in Ohio, there have been additional reporting requirements put in place as regards teachers specifically. These include requirements that districts report to the the state and that the country agencies and local police also report to the state. These specifics were put into place because the responsibility for removing licenses rests with the state, but information from other law enforcement entities was not always being shared.
Of course, private schools (not charter schools) kinda get left out because they are not required to hire licensed teachers.

There is a moral duty to report.
The Church failed.
The schools failed.
Individuals fail every day to report known crimes.

And you...you have a moral duty to stop defending the crimes against women and children endorsed by the Koran.

P.S.

The Bible does not endorse incest.

Leviticus 18:6 -- "None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord."

Lot was drunk; one bad decision led to another.
Exactly as happened to the institutions listed above.

[Hugh Victor Thompson III]

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow. For a religion that says that homosexuality is a abomination, you sure have a whole lot of them within your hierarchy.

Where does the Catholic church say that?

"Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner."
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality

[Duke for Mayor]

Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:

<quoted text>I think that part of the ORC should be pretty elementary for one who has passed the bar.

You're allegedly a smart feller.

Tell the Topix crowd what it means:

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2151.421

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2317.02

woof

[Adif understanding]

FKA Reader wrote:

<quoted text>
In other words, you don't have the first clue whether there have been any fatwahs endorsing pedophilia, or "thighing." It's just something you saw repeated on some website somewhere.
BTW--does the Bible endorse incest?

Yawn. You are saying, you are too damn lazy to just check it while everyone around you has googled it and found examples including fatwas but because your mind is too stoned fto get off the figurative couch, you will choose to deny it. You are a smart one there.

And no, the bible does not endorse incest. Your intellectual dishonesty is completely amazing. Oh, and I bet I know what you are going to point to in order to make that claim. lol.. And you will be doing what you accuse.

[Adif understanding]

FKA Reader wrote:

<quoted text>
Being gay does not require fornication.

Being homosexual does. It's the very definition of the term. You can be as gay as you think you want to be, but without fornication or sex, you are not homosexual. You default to heterosexual because that's the natural method of sexual reproduction.

[KELLERMAN]

VADoc wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry I am an Eagle Scout and far from gay.
I don't mind the Boy Scouts letting gays into scouting or allowing gay scout masters.
Scouts already have rules in place to prevent any molestation. Scouts and scout masters never sleep in the same tents or quarters.
I think the more scouts the better. If more kids were involved in scouting we'd have less teenagers gang banging, doing drugs, and causing trouble.
The problem is many Mormons are scouts. The Mormon church has threatened in the past that if gays are allowed in scouting that they will pull out of Boy Scouts and start their own organization.

You are to be commended for your maturity and intelligence. It appears that many of young folks don't have the problem with gays that older folks have. As long as people are monitored and have no hidden agendas, I don't see why gays cant be in the scouts. Many of the gays I have met are no different than that of their straight counterparts.

[Duke for Mayor]

And then Paco, there's the whole question of waiver of the clergy/penitent privilege.

I can think of all sorts of creative ways to get discovery to try to prove waiver.

http://www.clrc.ca.gov/pub/Printed-Reports/RE...

woof

[Adif understanding]

KELLERMAN wrote:

<quoted text> You are to be commended for your maturity and intelligence. It appears that many of young folks don't have the problem with gays that older folks have. As long as people are monitored and have no hidden agendas, I don't see why gays cant be in the scouts. Many of the gays I have met are no different than that of their straight counterparts.

That is if all the straight counter parts to gays you know all have a sexual desires with the inability to control it to the point that their sexual behavior is perverted and they must let you know it is.

I mean seriously, we are talking about a sexual differential here in which the defining factor is someone making it known that they have sex with the same sex. Do you not think that is disturbing when they want to be around little male children. I would think it very disturbing when a male heterosexual wants so badly to be around little girls that he fights tooth and nail to do it. Would you feel comfortable in allowing that? How about if he went around acting like he has sexual desires he can't keep a secrete from you?

I'm sure there are gays out there who would never hurt a child. I'm also sure there are people serving in the military in the time of two wars that would never kill another human being. However, the ones jumping up and down to go to the killing zone should be examined with a little more thought then the regular guy down the road.

[FKA Reader]

Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:

<quoted text>You assign far too much rigidity and straight authoritarianism to the administration of Catholic hierarchies in various nations. The Pope has lots of power the way the Queen does...on paper. Rarely does the Pope put the hammer down on individuals...Father Drinan was one I remember with clarity, and that was simply telling him to resign his House seat. The other was Archbishop Lefebvre and his SSPX cohorts.

What would be more telling is your memory of those who have opposed the system in any way, and how they were responded to.

[FKA Reader]

Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:

<quoted text>It's also not regarded as being morally straight by many people.

The majority of Americans today regard homosexuality as a state of being, as heterosexuality is. It is not morally anything any more than being male or female are morally anything.

[FKA Reader]

Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:

<quoted text>I was referring to the American Catholic hierarchy. Note that the Church made a point of declaring in '80s that only homosexual behavior was immoral, and that celibate gays were not in conflict with the Church. You think they did that just for the parishioners...?

Then you switched topics. We were discussing the BSA oath to be "morally straight."

You claim that BSA regards homosexuality as being not morally straight--and that this is what the oath refers to.

I asked about why they would go to such lengths to protect them then. And you indicated that the protective policies must have been put in place and acted upon by homosexuals.

I admit the parallel. But, that is not what we were discussing.

[Hugh Victor Thompson III]

FKA Reader wrote:

<quoted text>
What would be more telling is your memory of those who have opposed the system in any way, and how they were responded to.

I just gave you two examples.

[FKA Reader]

Adif understanding wrote:

<quoted text>Yawn. You are saying, you are too damn lazy to just check it while everyone around you has googled it and found examples including fatwas but because your mind is too stoned fto get off the figurative couch, you will choose to deny it. You are a smart one there.
And no, the bible does not endorse incest. Your intellectual dishonesty is completely amazing. Oh, and I bet I know what you are going to point to in order to make that claim. lol.. And you will be doing what you accuse.

Ohhhhhhh! The righteous anger. Being called upon to support one's own statements. You have no idea if there have ever been any fatwah's in support of pedophilia or "thighing." And rather than admit that (or that you've been googling all afternoon and can't come up with any), you are going to call me lazy for not doing your research for you.

I would suggest that the Bible does not necessarily endorse incest. But, it includes the account of Lot's daughters doing what they needed to do to continue their line, living in isolation with no husbands. Likewise, it does not give the specific age of every bride on marriage, but everything is not so clean and nice and Ozzie and Harriet as some folks like to pretend. In fact, if you spend much time following marriages and so forth through the Bible, you might step back from the so-called Biblical view of marriage and family.

Yet, you claim to understand the whole of Islam by pulling a verse or two here and there.

[Hugh Victor Thompson III]

FKA Reader wrote:

<quoted text>
The majority of Americans today regard homosexuality as a state of being, as heterosexuality is. It is not morally anything any more than being male or female are morally anything.

The majority of Americans can't find Brazil on a map. The majority of Americans think penguins live in the Arctic. The majority of Americans don't know who attacked Pearl Harbor.

[FKA Reader]

Adif understanding wrote:

<quoted text>Being homosexual does. It's the very definition of the term. You can be as gay as you think you want to be, but without fornication or sex, you are not homosexual. You default to heterosexual because that's the natural method of sexual reproduction.

And you studied human sexuality where, exactly?

It is statements like that that lead many to suspect that a good many gay-haters are merely closeted self-haters. Well, keep on keeping on. Let it be your own little secret how your sergeant salutes when a pretty boy walks by. Fight the good fight. Marry some unsuspecting little woman who won't mind too much if you have a great platonic relationship and not so much under the covers.

Just know that what you feel is NOT what every other man on the block feels. And it is all right.

[Hugh Victor Thompson III]

FKA Reader wrote:

<quoted text>
Then you switched topics. We were discussing the BSA oath to be "morally straight."
You claim that BSA regards homosexuality as being not morally straight--and that this is what the oath refers to.
I asked about why they would go to such lengths to protect them then. And you indicated that the protective policies must have been put in place and acted upon by homosexuals.
I admit the parallel. But, that is not what we were discussing.

My mistake, then. I thought you were referring to the Church.
I don't believe the BSA covered up nearly as much as the Church.
I'm not lying when I tell you that as a Catholic and a former Scout, I never knew a clergyman or scout leader accused of sexual misconduct.

[FKA Reader]

Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:

<quoted text>I just gave you two examples.

Those were the extremes.

I suspect that discipline runs along a continuum.

[Hugh Victor Thompson III]

FKA Reader wrote:

<quoted text>
Those were the extremes.
I suspect that discipline runs along a continuum.

Those were examples of Papal discipline. The vast majority is at the lower levels. It doesn't take a Pope to excommunicate someone. I believe I read that there are an average of two or three excommunications a year in North America.