Gays in the Boy Scouts: US child militant organization should follow trend says chief

Wasn't aware of that. While this still doesn't give the state the legal standing to demand BSA change it's policies, these government agencies could express an intent to discontinue future support if they felt those policies were not in the public interest. People who have strong feelings on this issue can and should express their concerns to both the congressional representatives and local leaders.

It might not happen because of the BSAs otherwise stellar social image, widespread public support, and the fact that use of land isn't that costly a form of support. But people speaking out strongly and publicly about this could draw new attention to these issues within the organization. I personally believe BSA will change those policies eventually, the tide in this country is pretty obvious and folks at BSA have to see their policies will eventually become more of a liability than an asset.​

 

Your argument is without merit.
Animals also eat their young, rape their women, commit murder. Just because the animals do it is no reason for everyone else to.

 

Hint: Homosexuality is an orientation.....it only has to do with attraction. There are no other traits attached.

 

Sorry, I said they instituted a program to help their members identify pedophiles. It started in the 80's. There were problems and lawwsuits that were occuring so they wanted to put their groups on the alert. I'll see if i can find a site that has the info for you. I have a good friend who just retired from the National Council and he told me alot about the program.

http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/HealthandSafety/GSS/gss01.aspx

 

I am sorry to say that I think the American Scouting movement has become a travesty of what Lord Baden-Powell intended. That religious prejudice (particularly emanating from Mormonism) has infected what was intended to be a healthy organisation for the advancement of young people, is to be regretted greatly. That such an organisation is subsidised by public funding is doubly regrettable.

I much prefer the principles as set out by the original Scouting movement.

1. A Scout is honourable, truthful and reliable.
2. A Scout is loyal to the Queen, his/her Country, his/her Parents, his/her Officers and to comrades high and low.
3. A Scout is helpful to others, whatever it may cost him/her.
4. A Scout is a friend to all and a brother/sister to all Scouts.
5. A Scout is courteous to all.
6. A Scout is kind to animals.
7. A Scout is obedient and follows orders from his/her Parents and Officers promptly.
8. A Scout is cheerful and takes trouble with a trusting grace.
9. A Scout is self reliant and a good steward of his/her possessions.
10. A Scout is upright in his/her conduct.

You will note - no reference to religion, and no prohibitions against atheist, agnostic, or homosexual scouts. Just valuable and common sense advice to young kids,

 

Animals do a lot of the things you described and it was wrong of me to think of little animals as a model for human behaviour.

 

I have no problem with this.

People are too sensitive today. Everything is about prejudice this and discrimination that. The Boy Scouts were designed to give boys useful guidance to grow into strong and capable masculine men, not submissive politically correct sissies. Masculinity is not politically correct. It's not supposed to be. Nature didn't design it that way. So touchy feely "tolerance" policies belong in the Boy Scouts about as much as an MMA fight belongs in a romance novel. It's just the wrong arena for those things.

You have to realize that a lot of these "prohibitions" are relatively new problems that were not prevalent at the advent of the Boy Scouts. They were not mentioned because they were not relevant at the time. Had they been common, those principles might look a little bit different.

 

As long as they receive government assistance, they should have to operate by government, that is public, standards.

I agree.

 

Typical Gay community wishy washy response. Let members of the Gay community, some of whom camouflage themselves as RC priests, act as sexual predators of children, untill we have absolute proof.

Well that might suit the Left wing softies, but I certainly wont be waiting for absolute proof when it the proof is staring me right in my face.

Children come first, sexual preferences come second!

 

Are you saying all gay people abuse children?

 

As a proportion of the number of gays in the world, their sexual abuse of children is despicable and undeniable. Dressing as priests was just a hideous camouflage to hide their malacious intention to grossly abuse their position. Aided and abetted, of course, by the RC hierarchy.

I presume you understand statistics.

 

I do understand statistics.

There are more heterosexual perverts in the world than homosexual perverts... As such, your child has a greater chance of being assaulted by a heterosexual pervert than a homosexual pervert.

That said, the gay finds him or herself in many areas of temptation... Walking into tempting environments, bath houses, etc. Moreover his/her/it may have pent sexual frustration due to few sexual options. As such... Though your child has a less chance to encounter a gay-P, the gay-P could be more prone to crime. Actually gay-P itself is a crime, as H-P is.

The question is whether gay-P equals gay-NP, and it does NOT. You do not at all believe that H-P equals H-NP therefore you cannot conclude that gay-P equals gay-NP.

 

hows having a problem with homosexuals going to make me manly?

 

That was also my understanding and it was taught at degree level here in the UK -- admittedly many years ago since those happy days .
Now I am not so sure .
I believe the Stats are essentially compiled from court conviction details and stats .
Putting on one side Paedophile rings , I believe the Homosexual Community are as a whole much better equipped and motivated to protect erring individuals than their heterosexual counterparts .
Bluntly , so called Straight offenders tend to operate alone , whereas Gays are much more community involved . They " rally " round and protect .Many of "their" cases never get to court for a variety of reasons .
This possibly suggests the official stats are misleading though I doubt for deliberately intended reasons imo .

 

You have deliberately tried to avoid the statement made in my post that 'As a proportion of the number of gays in the world, their sexual abuse of children is despicable and undeniable'. But you have been found out! I wonder what else you are trying to hide in relation to the sexual abuse of children by those in the homosexual community.

 

Homosexuality doesn't necessarily equal pedophilia.

 

Provide evidence to that effect.

Which statistics? Also you didnt answer my question. Surely you agree not all homosexuals are pedophiles?

 

Well, male homosexuality doesnt necessarily equal HIV, but it is about 40 times more likely to lead to HIV when compared to heterosexuals

 

Bigotry noted. Confirmation of why I should continue to ignore you.

 

Citation to back this claim up with something solid, or it's just gay-hating BS.

 

Who Abuses Children?FACT: Those that molest children look and act just like everyone else. There are people who have or will sexually abuse children in your church, school and youth sports leagues. Abusers can be neighbors, friends and family members. Most significantly, abusers are often children themselves.
Family members commit 39% of the reported sexual assaults on children (Snyder, 2000).
56% of those that sexually abuse a child are acquaintances of either the child or the family (Snyder, 2000).
Only 5% of sexual abuse is perpetrated by a stranger (Snyder, 2000).
The younger the victim, the more likely it is that the abuser is a family member. 50% of those molesting a child under 6 were family members. 23% of those abusing a 12-17 year-old child were family members (Snyder, 2000).
34% of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by juveniles. In fact, 7% of sexual abuse is perpetrated by youth under the age of 12 (Snyder, 2000).
The younger the child victim, the more likely it is that the perpetrator is a juvenile. Juveniles are the offenders in 43% of assaults on children under age 6. 14% of these offenders are under the age of 12 (Snyder, 2000).
Homosexual individuals are no more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual individuals.\ (Jenny, et. al., 1994).







http://www.d2l.org/site/c.4dICIJOkGcISE/b.6250791/k.F566/Who_Abuses_Children.htm

Here are some statistics for you.

 

No, a disproportionate number of homosexuals practice unsafe sex, for a variety of reasons. Most of them have to do with the treatment of homosexuals by society. None of them have to do with being homosexual. Viruses don't care what your orientation is.

 

Letting gays in the Boy Scouts is like putting Dracula in charge of a Blood Bank.

 

The homosexual is 40 times more likely to have HIV so sex with homosexuals is 40 times more likely to lead to HIV infection when compared to a heterosexual. One encounter with a homosexual has the same risk of aquiring HIV as a lifetime of encounters with heterosexuals.

And gays engage in unprotected sex more frequently because there is no risk of pregnancy. Not because of any treatment of homosexuals by society.

 

So?

Again, so what?

But as you point out its SOME homosexuals. SOME homosexuals have aids because SOME have unprotected sex. This is not a reason to condemn ALL homosexuals.