Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My (briefly) born-again aunt brought me to one of their meetings at the local "Assembly of Jesus God Cavalry" Christian church back when I was thinking of leaving the Scouts, thinking I would enjoy it. One meeting was MORE than enough.
Why should the BSA be bullied into changing? Why shouldn't the scouting experience stay true to its original purpose and be free from sexual interactions? Let's say that you have a boy scout troop with a significant percentage of gay boys, then there's the likelihood of gay boy romances forming... just like there would be in any coed kid and teen camp experience. Which is why the boy and girl scouts were designed to be a single sex activity.
Why can the LGBT community be fine with forming their own scout groups? And they can also have sexual orientation counseling classes too.
Why should the BSA be bullied into changing? Why shouldn't the scouting experience stay true to its original purpose and be free from sexual interactions? Let's say that you have a boy scout troop with a significant percentage of gay boys, then there's the likelihood of gay boy romances forming... just like there would be in any coed kid and teen camp experience. Which is why the boy and girl scouts were designed to be a single sex activity.
Why can the LGBT community be fine with forming their own scout groups? And they can also have sexual orientation counseling classes too.
The Girl Scouts have never excluded LGBT members or leaders, with no discernable problems. Your assertion is ill informed.
Absolutely false. Pedophila is a paraphila that is not associated with adult sexual orientation. Same-sex behavior doesn't make one gay. Sexual Orientation is defined based on attractions, not behavior. Pedophiles are attracted to children. Gay men are not. I'm getting fed up with people like you spreading disgusting lies about gays because you're too ignorant and uneducated.
More proof you have no clue what you're talking about. Pedophila isn't an act. Pedophila is not illegal. Child molestation is. The two are not the same.
Every single word of your post is pure Orwellian nonsense, and so lacking of common sense and basic logic that the complete lack of honesty almost takes on a secondary role, given the absurdity overall, which reflects a disconnect with fundamental reality similar to someone insisting that the Moon is made of cream cheese. It's so absurdly false, that "lie" hardly begins to define it. Though without bothering to read ahead, I can predict with relative certainty that one or more of the usual suspects will, as they ALWAYS do, present links to a dozen or more "studies" that support every upside down word you just typed. Though no cited study can magically transform the rocky surface of the Moon into a dairy product, anymore than a study can deny the clear homosexual nature of a male adult engaging in sex with another male OF ANY AGE! So, I will not just dismiss this as pure nonsense and leave it at that ... I will break down every element to show what a defunct truckload of BS it is, right down to the last shovel full, including the insidious reason for promoting this alternate version of reality!
1) Pedophila is a paraphila - this term "paraphilia" is a clinical term used in psychiatry and in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) with such a broad definition as to make the term irrelevant and unusable for the purpose of meaningful conversation. The clinical definition: “any intense and persistent sexual interest other than sexual interest in genital stimulation or preparatory fondling with phenotypically normal, consenting adult human partners.†is so broadly vague, as to render it meaningless. One need not be a rocket scientist, a lawyer, or a professional in the field of psychiatry to recognize the ambiguity of this non-definitive term open to any interpretation. What defines "intense" ? What defines "persistent" ? What defines " phenotypically normal", and what in the hell could someone point to that might be considered "sexual interest" that is not associated with "interest in genital stimulation" ? Can a deep desire for a drink of water be defined as something other than thirst? It's an absurd insinuation on the surface. CONCLUSION: the term itself is pure double talk, because the definition of the term is nothing other than pure double talk. Paraphilia can be whatever the user wishes it to mean, based on the undefined variables which follows a rather "persistent" pattern seen in the DSM manual itself ... it being nothing more than a collection of clinical terms, symptoms, diagnoses, created by a consortium of psychiatrists who frequently demonstrate greater and more "intense" symptoms of mental illness than the patients they're supposed to be diagnosing with help from that manual filled with similar examples of bovine excrement.
2)Same-sex behavior doesn't make one gay - this nonsense really needs no analysis or break down from me to illustrate it's idiotic nature. Of course, the statement could be accurate if one were to ignore the improper English used. Yes, it would be incorrect to claim same sex behavior "makes" someone gay .... as in "causing" one to be gay. But your improper usage aside, the modern day understanding and usage of the term "gay" is well understood to define male-male sexual behavior, just as the term "lesbian" is well understood to define female-female sexual behavior. So, I'm flabbergasted that anyone would openly make such an overtly ridiculous statement like this. CONCLUSION: this statement can only be made by someone totally out of touch with reality, or those deliberately engaging in double talk and semantical gamesmanship.
3)Sexual Orientation is defined based on attractions, not behavior - this has to be one of the most overtly idiotic claims ever made, and obviously just more semantical games and Orwellian double talk. The truth is, it should be obvious to anyone with an IQ larger than their waist size that you cannot separate feelings, attractions and actions, as a person's sexual "behavior" is driven by their sexual feelings and attractions .. and that's true for everyone, homosexuals and heterosexuals alike. The only exception might be for those engaged in sexual activity as a business, but even then, I don't think one will find too many heterosexual males having sex with other males, even for business purposes. In fact, it would be this type of same sex activity that would eliminate the possibility of the person being heterosexual, because this is the primary and only distinction between the two orientations, with heterosexuals being naturally attracted to the opposite sex and therefore pursue sexual activity with those of the opposite sex, just as homosexuals who are naturally attracted to the same sex, pursue same sex relations. To make such an absurd claim to the contrary is like saying the desire for large volumes of alcohol is what defines an alcoholic ... but consuming of large volumes of alcohol does not qualify one as an alcoholic. CONCLUSION: It's pure, over-the-top craziness to make such absurd claims.
4)Pedophiles are attracted to children. Gay men are not - this absurd claim is the reason for all of the other blatantly absurd crap that preceded it! And it is also the most damning confession that homosexuals can make regarding their agenda here. To insist on continuing this fraudulent line of non-reasoned deception, thoroughly destroys any chance that someone could view your claims as remotely credible. What this does do is it totally exposes your disingenuous and dangerous nature. Clearly, the desire to protect the overall "public image" of homosexuals in general is the driving motive here, but you couldn't pick a worse tactic to engage, because it is so thoroughly and transparently absurd! The very attempt of making such a case is counter productive in the extreme, because it is so clearly false!
CONCLUSIONS:
Child molesters in vast overwhelming majority absolutely do observe gender preference in the selection of their victims. This is an indisputable reality that has been proven beyond any doubt whatsoever. Whether one looks at the sexual abuse of children within families, or the abuse inflicted outside the family structure by strangers, a consistent pattern of gender preference is seen, with pedophiles who abuse little girls consistently selecting only girls, and those who abuse little boys, exclusively abusing little boys. This is THE SINGULAR defining distinction between heterosexuality and homosexuality ... gender preference. Although one might be able to find a rare exception to this well demonstrated pattern, an exception does not override the dominant pattern which follows an almost exclusively definitive gender preference among these depraved perverted child predators. And this is easily seen in the all too numerous and well documented cases that have gained national attention from Catholic priests to football coaches ..... you never see anything other than a consistent selection of victims based on gender ... with these most publicized crimes usually involving little boys EXCLUSIVELY.
This absurd claim that no orientation is observed in child molestation is not only transparently false, but your reasons for doing so is also quite quite obvious as well. Given the universally recognized fact that the vast majority of pedophiles are male, with relatively few documented cases of female perpetrators by comparison, we can say for the purpose of debate that the sexual assault of children is a predominantly male perpetrated crime which is the manifestation of the mental abnormality referred to as pedophilia. In light of that reality, the effort to disassociate homosexuality and pedophilia is a necessary, prerequisite to obscure the more "image damaging" reality that the hard mathematics of comparing the heterosexual/homosexual ratios within the general population, with the ratios of male/female child victims show that there is a multi-fold greater predisposition to pedophile behavior among homosexual males .... and that FACT is the reason for all of the preceding double talk and obfuscations which want to obscure or deny that reality. Though the hard data shows that female children are victimized in greater numbers overall, the ratios show that a greater percentage of homosexual males abuse boys, than their heterosexual counterparts who abuse female children. There are just more female victims overall because there are 10 times as many heterosexual males as there are homosexuals, but the fact that there is a 70%/30% ratio of female/male child victims definitively shows a greater predisposition in homosexual males. Math does not lie, it can possess no discrimination or bigotry ... the math simply is what it is.
This greater (mathematical) predisposition for pedophile behavior among homosexual males DOES NOT claim or even suggest that ALL homosexual males should be considered or treated as threats to children. This only suggests that greater caution and scrutiny be exercised in allowing unsupervised contact between homosexual males and young male children based on this mathematically greater prevalence, because the safety of these children must be the first and most important consideration ... not the "group image" of homosexual males.
No one that I know of, or would agree with is suggesting that homosexual males are pedophiles by nature, anymore than I would suggest that males in general are pedophiles by nature, even in light of the fact that almost all pedophiles are males. The percentage of pedophiles within the total population of males show that it's only a very miniscule number of males who sexually abuse children of any gender, so I, as a male would reject any insinuation that males should be universally considered a threat to children, when the vast majority pose no such threat. But as a male who believes the welfare of children must be the number one priority, all of us must recognize that the potential does exist, and that there are those among us that do represent a threat, and that must be dealt with in whatever ways that offer the most effective protection of children. If that means that the behavior of heterosexual males should be watched closely in their interactions with young female children, I have no problem with that at all, because, again, it's about the safety of the children ... that should be the only issue of concern.
This same attitude should be ESPECIALLY EMBRACED by homosexual males, as a clear declaration that as a collective group, they too consider the safety of children as far more important than their group's "public image". The insistence on promoting such blatant nonsense that insinuates that no homosexuals are pedophiles destroys the group's credibility, as well as exposes the larger reality .... that homosexuals care far more about their "public image" than they do about the safety and welfare of children, which appears to be NON-EXISTENT. In fact, this rather blatant disregard for the welfare of children couldn't be more prominently demonstrated than in the fight for homosexual males to be involved with the boy scouts. The only legitimate stance would be to recognize that the safety of these boys far outweighs anything else, and particularly some absurd claim that there is some God given, constitutionally protected right for homosexuals to be boy scout leaders, when the ONLY threat of sexual abuse is posed by homosexual males .. given the truthful understanding that there is no such thing as a heterosexual male who will sexually molest another male. This threat to little boys is exclusive to the homosexual pedophile ONLY.
I would be just as supportive of a prohibition on allowing any males whatsoever to have unsupervised access to little girls by means of serving as leaders in the girl scouts. If that is viewed as discrimination, so be it ... better that than exposing these children to unnecessary risks under the pretense of political correctness.
In final conclusion, I personally despise anyone who harms children in any manner, whether it be physical or sexual in nature. I also do not wish to insinuate that the harm inflicted upon little girls is any less despicable than that inflicted upon little boys, as I view both girls and boys to be equally valuable and deserving of the same protections. Experts however, do suggest that there is another layer of psychological damage which manifests later in the lives of heterosexual young men coming to terms with being victims of homosexual assault as youngsters, for obvious reasons. It's really a double crime against them ... sexual assault being one, and a violation of their natural sexual orientation being another added violation, though that doesn not lessen the despicable nature of assaulting little girls in any way shape of form.
As a male, I'm disgusted by such obnoxious sexual depravity in all it's forms, which is unfortunately most often inflicted by members of my gender ... and that is all the more reason for all decent men, regardless of sexual orientation, to condemn such behavior in the strongest of terms. And, with that realization that a small percentage of us do pose a threat, we must ALL accept the consequences of that sad fact by being willing to accept the need for greater caution in monitoring, and if need be, restricting our unsupervised access to children, for their safety's sake.
If that means prohibiting gay males from being boy scout leaders, TOUGH ! If that's what it takes to protect these little boys, it's a small but necessary price to pay, because we should all possess the common sense to understand that these child predators are drawn to exactly these types of positions which gives them unfettered access to so many children and potential victims.
People of good conscience would not gamble the safety of children for their own selfish purposes, and that's exactly what homosexuals are doing with these demands to be allowed to hold such positions in the boy scouts. In that regard, homosexuals are part of the problem, and not part of the solution, and those who posses basic common sense understand that, and will fight you selfish people with every ounce of energy we have. Keep off the children! They are neither sex toys for the perverts, nor political tools for the rest of you!!!
Why would they have sexual orientation counseling classes?
Do you recommend that for the so-called "straight" groups?
Or are you of the mind that by going to these counseling classes, that boys can be "counseled" out of their "gayness?"
Well the LGBT community is suggesting that gay kids are harmed by having to be closeted in the boy scouts.
I am just saying that in a straight boy scout troop, the friendships between the boys are all purely platonic. But if there are openly gay boys in the troop, then there is the possibility of romantic encounters or the straight boys feeling uncomfortable if they are being looked at sexually by the gay boys. An important aspect of the boy scouts was not having girls around to distract the boys.
Let them form their own scout club. Gay scouts or ***** scouts. Leave the gay stuff out of the Boy Scouts. Its supposed to be normal boys getting together to do camping type stuff, etc. Not having to worry/think about their newly open gay counterparts/leaders checking them out.
Well the LGBT community is suggesting that gay kids are harmed by having to be closeted in the boy scouts.
I am just saying that in a straight boy scout troop, the friendships between the boys are all purely platonic. But if there are openly gay boys in the troop, then there is the possibility of romantic encounters or the straight boys feeling uncomfortable if they are being looked at sexually by the gay boys. An important aspect of the boy scouts was not having girls around to distract the boys.
My son, who is a senior in high school, has a friend who is gay. I'm pretty sure my son is never uncomfortable around him (quite the opposite) nor has he ever thought his friend was looking at him sexually (whatever that means ).
How does one look at someone "sexually," anyway? Is there some special glance, maybe a wink?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
).
