Reading it again now, perhaps I could've articulated the point more clearly.
Basically BSA excludes homosexuals because homosexuality is deemed "deviant behavior" or some such. Given that, I find it hypocritical of BSA to make any exclusion (especially based on sexual perference or behavior) when members of the organization appear in so many headlines revealing sexual deviancy in the ranks (e.g. child molestation, pedophilia, child pornography, etc.).
In a way it's like the Catholic church condemning homosexuals while at the same time covering up the actions of a few sexually deviant members of the priesthood. Where does hypocrisy begin?
Point? If an organization is going to take a stand against "sexual deviancy" then it should be sure that none of its members are behaving in a way that is deviant. Here I'm defining child molestation/pornography/etc. as sexual deviancy (not many sane folks would debate that). But I'm not defining homosexuality as deviant (and there a lot of folks would rise to the debate, I'm sure).
The BSA moves quickly to kick out anyone who they percieve could tarnish their reputaion. Molesters, homosexuals, whoever. I don't see how this can be considered hypocritical.
On the other hand, even if they expel a member, I'm not sure that their behavior is necessarily exemplary, in that they may not turn him over to law enforcement, in order to keep the story quiet. But I would say that in the last ten years at least, they do get the law involved.
If an organization is going to take a stand against "sexual deviancy" then it should be sure that none of its members are behaving in a way that is deviant.
It sounds like what your're saying is that they shouldn't discriminate against one form of percieved deviance until they remove all the others. But since one can never be sure who is a child molester until they're caught, it doesn't make sense to ban the kiddie porn perusers until they get all the molesters. They don't prioritize. Molesters go. Gays go. Atheists go.
And I'm not saying this to defend their actions, I'm just saying that they're acting logically given their beliefs. You can say that their beliefs are wrong, but I don't think you can say their polices don't match their beliefs.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chiming
no subject
Date: 2005-03-31 01:57 am (UTC)From:Basically BSA excludes homosexuals because homosexuality is deemed "deviant behavior" or some such. Given that, I find it hypocritical of BSA to make any exclusion (especially based on sexual perference or behavior) when members of the organization appear in so many headlines revealing sexual deviancy in the ranks (e.g. child molestation, pedophilia, child pornography, etc.).
In a way it's like the Catholic church condemning homosexuals while at the same time covering up the actions of a few sexually deviant members of the priesthood. Where does hypocrisy begin?
Point? If an organization is going to take a stand against "sexual deviancy" then it should be sure that none of its members are behaving in a way that is deviant. Here I'm defining child molestation/pornography/etc. as sexual deviancy (not many sane folks would debate that). But I'm not defining homosexuality as deviant (and there a lot of folks would rise to the debate, I'm sure).
That help?
no subject
Date: 2005-03-31 04:06 am (UTC)From:The BSA moves quickly to kick out anyone who they percieve could tarnish their reputaion. Molesters, homosexuals, whoever. I don't see how this can be considered hypocritical.
On the other hand, even if they expel a member, I'm not sure that their behavior is necessarily exemplary, in that they may not turn him over to law enforcement, in order to keep the story quiet. But I would say that in the last ten years at least, they do get the law involved.
If an organization is going to take a stand against "sexual deviancy" then it should be sure that none of its members are behaving in a way that is deviant.
It sounds like what your're saying is that they shouldn't discriminate against one form of percieved deviance until they remove all the others. But since one can never be sure who is a child molester until they're caught, it doesn't make sense to ban the kiddie porn perusers until they get all the molesters. They don't prioritize. Molesters go. Gays go. Atheists go.
And I'm not saying this to defend their actions, I'm just saying that they're acting logically given their beliefs. You can say that their beliefs are wrong, but I don't think you can say their polices don't match their beliefs.