Boy Scouts and homosexual child molestors in San Diego

[CassandraComplex]

Continuing off the thread about the ACLU suing the Boy scouts (http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=38097), I am watching the news tonight and see that in San Diego, there is an investigation going for a child molestation ring (?) in the Boy Scouts of that area.
Apparently, since May of 1998 to May of this year, there have been a number of teen Boy Scouts molested by their camp leaders. This news is just surfacing.
Not much else needs to be said; this speaks volumes in the current debate.
Gays and liberals are upset because Boy Scouts don't want gay leaders due to a fear of child molestation, and the gays and libs cry foul, and what do you know, it is happening all this time.
(The ACLU is currently suing the Boy Scouts in San Diego for not allowing homosexual men to be Boy Scout leaders).
Apparently the facts speak for themselves.

If anyone sees a link to this news story on the net, maybe they can hotlink it. I just saw it on the news.
Somehow, I doubt this will get to the mainstream national press because it is far too politically incorrect.





[This message has been edited by CassandraComplex (edited August 09, 2000).]

 

[Jeff Thomas]

Well, in spite of potentially serious risk to my recent, apparent reputation for gay-bashing [you out there, Gorthaur? ], child molestation really has nothing to do with homosexuality.

I suppose a fellow past puberty may be of interest to a gay man, but I really don't believe that gays commonly 'troll' for 'children'. From what I've seen, this is simply a means to demonize the homosexual lifestyle.

Having said all that, I still abhor these attacks upon the Boy Scouts. Let's see ... a lot of our kids are screwed up, so let's trash one of the most successful youth organizations out there? Typical leftist move.

Live and let live. Regards from AZ

[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited August 09, 2000).]

 

[Tecolote]

Jeff,

Agreed. Homosexuality has nothing to do with pedophilia. In fact most pedophiles prey on children of the opposite sex. Lest we be lulled into a false sense of security, remember there are female pedophiles as well.

If the Boy Scouts want to keep gays out because of a religous conviction I see no problem with this. They're after all a private organization.



------------------
"Get yourself a Lorcin and lose that nickel plated sissy pistol."

 

[scud]

But that couldn't have happened, the only "rights" group that has evil people in it is the evil gun group !!

 

[Battler]

This question is independent of any question of tolerance towards homosexuality and homosexuals.

It is the scouts who are being persecuted here, first by a law (struck down in SC) and now through lawsuits.

That is the right of all concerned to free association. You can't force a group to accept someone.

That said, some scout leaders have resigned in disgust from this. Fine - maybe they can start a NEW boy scouts organization with a different policy/mandate.

THIS is how such grievances can be solved.


Battler.

 

[Dangus]

I disagree somewhat. Sexuality can have an effect on the motivations for such actions. I don't think homosexuality creates pedaphiles inherently, but it does probably define the specific target type for such predators. If you are a gay pedaphile, then you are going to seek the areas where young boys would be plentiful and under your authority. Boy Scouts is EXACTLY the kind of place that they would seek. If pedaphiles that molest little girls became a scout leader, it probably wouldn't have the same implications. Why? Because there generally aren't any little girls out there at the scout camps. It does play a role, though I totally agree that it is not the direct cause. Still, the scouts are 100% right in not wanting any sexuality involved with their program. They don't generally want women involved in the camps, not because they don't think they can, but they don't want men and women leaders having sex with each other, introducing that factor of sexuality into the camp. They also don't want homosexuals, even non-pedophile homosexuals, because they don't want them having sex with other scout leaders. What the hell is so wrong with this? I don't see why a private organization must allow these people into thier ranks when they can come up with a very good reason for it.

I have gay friends, and my best friend's dad is gay. I don't hate gay people, but I also don't think they belong in that environment, and frankly I think women generally do not either. Boys need time to be boys, and men need time to share with those boys to offer that fatherly experience to those kids, some who have never really gotten that at home. If women and gays don't understand this, that's fine, but I think it makes sense. I'm not saying there aren't some roles they could fill in the organization, but being off in the wilderness with a pack of young men, some not *that* much younger than yourself, such as the older scouts, could be like sitting a wolf admidst sheep, or more to the point, Clinton in a room of interns.
Maybe I'm wrong, but you'd better be ready to explain why.

------------------
I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist

The Bill of Rights is a document of brilliance, a document of wisdom, and it is the ultimate law, spoken or not, for the very concept of a society that holds liberty above the desire for ever greater power. -Me

 

[Red Bull]

My sentiments exactly, Dangus. We can be PC about this and beat around the bush about how"homosexuality does not induce child molestation", or we can face the facts that putting a gay male among a bunch of vulnerabe young men is a bad idea.
I would think it to be an equally bad idea to put a young male leader over a troop of girl scouts, whether or not he had a history of having sex with teenage girls. Putting a young man in the woods with a hundred vulnerable teenage girls is a really bad idea, and so is putting a gay man in the woods with a hundred vulnerable teenage boys.
It is a situation best avoided.

I don't think that child molestation is the point. The point is, these are teen kids being molested by gay camp counselors. Now, if there were no gay camp counselors, then would this be a problem?
I personally refuse to have my kids go on camping trips with homosexuals. You all can do as you wish with yours, but I am looking out for mine. As long as there are no gay camp counselors in a single sex environment...then, gee, the the odds of my teenage boy getting talked into having anal sex or oral sex by a straight man is a lot less than by a homosexual man, is it not?

You can believe current psychobabble and claim that homosexuality has nothing to do with old men having sex with teenage boys...or you can use your head and figure out for yourself that there is a problem with having gay men as camp leaders over a bunch of imporessionable, vulnerable teenage boys.

Argue with that logic, or just look at the case in San Diego and see that it IS happening. This is not theory, this is real life and it is happening right now, so there is no need to argue about whether it is a problem or not.





[This message has been edited by Red Bull (edited August 09, 2000).]

 

[Coinneach]

Point 1: This is nothing to do with RKBA. Not even remotely.

Point 2: Equating CHILD-molesters with gays is right in line with equating criminals with gun owners (ref Red Bull's "If there were no gay counselors, there would be no molestation" argument. Sounds eerily like "If there were no guns...").

Point 3: Promoting divisiveness among any demographics is totally out of line with TFL policy. All of the usual suspects in this ongoing war are advised to knock it off. Now.

This thread is now closed.

[This message has been edited by Coinneach (edited August 09, 2000).]