Should the Boy Scouts Allow Gay Leaders?

by (▪‿▪)DoctorWhoGuru(▪‿▪) Posted 2012/06/06 22:27:51

Related Topics: Boy Scouts, Boy, Boy Scout, Gay

Read More

215 votes
Read all 972 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	129 votes	60%
	No	86 votes	40%

+16

Add a comment above

Shawna 2012/06/06 22:33:24

Yes

+16
Homosexuality does not mean pedophilia. I wish we could put that one to rest once and for all.
>> See Replies

More polls by (▪‿▪)DoctorWhoGuru(▪‿▪)

Catch224u to Shawna 2012/06/09 02:10:06

+1
In your opinion. SAy is that a picture of THE ALIEN? or a goat?

reply
Shawna to Catch224u 2012/06/09 02:31:24

Tell that to someone who was raped by a married man with children, the kind of person who would easily be trusted to be a Scout leader or coach.

It's a goat. I thought it was cute.

reply
Chris- ... to Catch224u 2012/06/08 15:37:40

+1
You would do well to do a little more reading about Judith Reisman. Her "studies" are generally thought to be questionable at best, completely devoid of accuracy at worst. She is well known for endorsing the book, "The Pink Swastika" by Scott Lively. (currently in trouble for his involvement in the Uganda homosexual law calling for the death penality.) The book claims the Nazi Party was made up of homosexuals so gays are responsible for the holocaust.
She has a long history of associations with Christian groups like the American Family Association which has always stood in extreme opposition to anything involving homosexuality based on it's religious beliefs.
She appeared as a witness for the prosecution in the Mapplethorpe Obscenity Case in 1991 where she asserted people exposed to pornography suffered brain damage, could no longer be considered able to practice free speech, and therefore should not be covered by the 1st Amendment. She also accused Mapplethorpe of being a Nazi.
She sued the Kinsey Institue claiming they were trying to censor her book: Kinsey. Sex and Fraud , and for defamation of character. The book accused the Institute of molestation and other crimes. The case was dismissed by the court with "extreme prejudice."
This is only the tip of the ice berg as far as ...

You would do well to do a little more reading about Judith Reisman. Her "studies" are generally thought to be questionable at best, completely devoid of accuracy at worst. She is well known for endorsing the book, "The Pink Swastika" by Scott Lively. (currently in trouble for his involvement in the Uganda homosexual law calling for the death penality.) The book claims the Nazi Party was made up of homosexuals so gays are responsible for the holocaust.
She has a long history of associations with Christian groups like the American Family Association which has always stood in extreme opposition to anything involving homosexuality based on it's religious beliefs.
She appeared as a witness for the prosecution in the Mapplethorpe Obscenity Case in 1991 where she asserted people exposed to pornography suffered brain damage, could no longer be considered able to practice free speech, and therefore should not be covered by the 1st Amendment. She also accused Mapplethorpe of being a Nazi.
She sued the Kinsey Institue claiming they were trying to censor her book: Kinsey. Sex and Fraud , and for defamation of character. The book accused the Institute of molestation and other crimes. The case was dismissed by the court with "extreme prejudice."
This is only the tip of the ice berg as far as Reisman is concerned.
All that aside you are missing a major error in her study and one she was criticized heavily for.
Simply put, homosexuals are attracted to their own sex and heterosexuals are attracted to the opposite sex. Pedophiles are attracted to children. That is basis of their sexual orientation. Whether the victim is male or female is not part of the actual definition. The act itself may be described as homosexual or heterosexual for descriptive purposes, but neither is the motivating factor for their actions. Age is far more important than sex to a pedophile.
(more)

reply
Catch224u to Chris- ... 2012/06/09 01:52:38

+1
I saw a news flash on the internet just recently that said Hitler was homosexual. Might be true,might not.
American Family Association? Oh that's an organization with a hidden agenda.Bad people,Bad,bad bad.
BUT, most, not all PEDOPHILES are homosexual !

reply
Chris- ... to Catch224u 2012/06/09 04:35:46

Look, you are probably a very nice person who is just debating a topic on a web site. Nothing wrong with that, and if you were simply stating your opinion I would not even be replying to you. Who am I to tell anyone how to feel about this topic?
My issue is not how you or anyone feels about homosexuals, it is about people using facts that not accurate to prove a point.
Everything I wrote in my reply is accurate. You can easily check any of it and you will find multiple sources for all of it.
I did not say the A.F.A. had a hidden agenda because they do not. They are very upfront about their beliefs. It says right on the front page of their web site they are a one issue group and that issue is opposition to homosexuality. Are they bad? I suppose that depends on what you're religious beliefs are.
But again, facts are facts, and the research they use to promote their cause is NOT accurate. That is not my opinion, that is well documented and easily verified.

reply
Catch224u to Chris- ... 2012/06/12 00:26:24

+1
"Her "studies" are generally thought to be questionable" By whom?
"She has a long history of associations with Christian groups" Oh, that's BAD, real BAD.

reply
Catch224u to Shawna 2012/06/08 01:14:20

+1
BUT without Homosexuality, PEDOPHILIA occurences would drop by 86%.

reply
Shawna to Catch224u 2012/06/08 01:23:30

I told you I don't buy those statistics.

reply
Catch224u to Shawna 2012/06/09 01:54:55

+1
That was not her stats, but quoted from an FBI report.

reply
Shawna to Catch224u 2012/06/08 01:24:35

And with that sort of logic, we could decrease molestations remarkably if we just got rid of all men too.

reply
Catch224u to Shawna 2012/06/09 01:57:05

+1
Just the ones that want to mess with little kids. That would be alright by me.

reply
Shawna to Catch224u 2012/06/09 02:03:20

Me too, but before we get rid of them we have to be sure we are not accusing the innocent.

reply
Cognito22 to Shawna 2012/06/08 11:38:28

+1
No, but research shows it's more likely to.
http://www.freerepublic.com/f...

reply
Chris- ... to Cognito22 2012/06/08 14:35:41

+1
Did you read the whole article? Do you know who Peter LaBarbera is? Do you know who Tim Dailey is? Have you ever gone to the Family Research Council's web site and read what is on it? Before you quote anything these people say as if it was a fact, I suggest you do some research.

reply
Cognito22 to Chris- ... 2012/06/08 14:59:43 (edited)

+1
Nope, just googled the question, 'is homosexuality linked to pedophilia' and the first page pretty much presents articles suggesting there is a link.
You're welcome to post links to what you're saying though.
It would save me time and obviously you have the information readily available.
What aspect of the study are you questioning?

reply
Chris- ... to Cognito22 2012/06/08 15:51:03

+1
This is what upsets me about discussions like this. Not to single you out, we all do it, but you have to read the whole article and many times you then have to do some of your own digging to find out what's the real story. If you're really interested google the following names: Peter LaBarbera, Tim Daily, Paul Cameron, Family Research Council, N.A.R.T.H., Scott Lively, "The Pink Triangle", and Judith Reisman. Read one pro and on con article on each and you'll understand immediately what the problem is.
It has nothing to do with how any of us personally feel about this topic. It has to do with inaccurate, misleading, and sometimes dishonest information that we all use to form opinions. I've made the mistake of taking things at face value many times. Now I want to see everything I can before I believe anything.

reply
Dave0626 to Shawna 2012/06/08 15:06:18

+2
The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE OUTRAGE AGAINST THIS ORG. FROM THE GAY COMMUNITY!

reply
Chris- ... to Dave0626 2012/06/08 16:09:35

+2
Really? A Wikipedia page is the best you can do and even that you didn't bother to read entirely. There are no less than three statements from major LGBT groups condemning NAMBLA on that link you provided.

reply
Shawna to Chris- ... 2012/06/08 19:26:22

+1
Thanks Chris. I'm tired today and don't have the energy to cope with all of these responses. You are doing a super job.
I'm just so tired of the ignorance and paranoia.

reply
Chris- ... to Shawna 2012/06/08 19:57:52

+1
I never spend this much time on one poll but the crap i have been reading from some people is so ridiculous I have to respond to some of it.

reply
Shawna to Chris- ... 2012/06/08 19:59:47

+1
I know. It is so frustrating. I keep trying to just be done with it and ignore it. I stay away from the politics section here but this is my one battle. I always show up to the homophobic polls.

reply
lurx: the soda jerk 2012/06/06 22:33:18

Yes

+7
Why not?

...the suggestion that gays are more prone to pedaphilia has been thoroughly disproven.

reply
FeedFwd to lurx: t... 2012/06/07 20:35:58

How about pedophiles who prey on underage boys? There aren't girls in the Boy Scouts that we have to worry about, at least not until they are older and join Explorer Scouts. I'm guessing most pedophiles prey on girls, but the Boy scouts are really trying to prevent pedophiles from preying on those in their care, namely boys.

reply
lurx: t... to FeedFwd 2012/06/11 21:47:33

+2
There are far more heterosexual pedophiles than homosexual pedophiles in our society.

reply
FeedFwd to lurx: t... 2012/06/12 13:12:07 (edited)

+1
We've been through this in other parts of the thread. Most pedophiles go after girls, not boys. Boy Scouts don't have girls unless and until you reach the level of Explorer Scouts. With very few exceptions, most pedophiles who prey on boys are gay men. In any case, if a background check indicates that a straight man is a pedophile or registered sex offender, I doubt he will be allowed to become a scout leader, either. If a gay man does not advertise the fact that he is gay and does not have a record,he could probably sneak in as a scouter. But again, the ideals of the Boy Scouts include the concepts of being morally straight and clean and reverent. If a gay man disagrees with the BSA on what those terms mean and won't support the BSA ideals, then that represents a fundamental disagreement and they should probably part ways. We used to call that common sense.

reply
lurx: t... to FeedFwd 2012/06/12 17:29:09

+2
"Studies on who commits child sexual abuse vary in their findings, but the most common finding is that the majority of sexual offenders are family members or are otherwise known to the child. Sexual abuse by strangers is not nearly as common as sexual abuse by family members.

Research further shows that men perpetrate most instances of sexual abuse, but there are cases in which women are the offenders.

Despite a common myth, homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are."

http://borngay.procon.org/vie...

Gays are even less likely on average to become pedophiles, but since you feel a person's sexual orientation is a dominant factor in their propensity towards child abuse, then all heterosexual men should be barred from teaching girls, and all heterosexual women should be barred from teaching boys.

reply
FeedFwd to lurx: t... 2012/06/12 18:15:46

I didn't say that. Again, the statistics you report may be skewed by the fact that most sexual abuse occurs to girls. What I am in agreement with is that a private organization may set its guidelines and rules for membership, benefits, objectives, functions, etc. It really is irrelevant whether gays are more likely to abuse boys or not. It is a risk factor that the BSA has decided to avoid by policy. Girls are barred from joining the Boy Scouts just as boys are barred from joining the Girl Scouts. For a more "enlightened" organization, the Campfire Girls or whatever they are called these days allow both girls and boys to join in a co-educational experience. Perhaps gays can co-opt an existing group like Campfire or create their own. But the BSA has put a stake in the ground and we aren't going to change it... nor should we IMHO.

reply
lurx: t... to FeedFwd 2012/06/12 18:26:40

+1
"It is a risk factor that the BSA has decided to avoid by policy."

...then maybe the educational system should follow it's lead by barring all heterosexual men from teaching girls, and all heterosexual women from teaching boys.

reply
FeedFwd to lurx: t... 2012/06/12 19:45:42 (edited)

I would argue that some private schools may indeed wish to do that. As long as it is voluntary and private, it is none of my business. I can decide to send my kids there or not. So can you. That is just one more reason why I think we ought to abandon public schools except in communities that want it and are willing to fund it. I would rather see us go to all private school education and let teachers and schools compete for tuition income from students the way private schools do today. The schools and teachers that best serve the needs of parents and students will be successful. Less successful schools and teachers can model themselves after the successful programs or develop specialized niches like offering evening and weekend classes for parents who work during the weekend and evenings or classes that emphasize certain courses of study or who knows what. That is the beauty of free market competiton... it offers the most choice for consumers. But I digress...

Of course, schools don't generally take a group of kids out in the woods for an overnighter. Parents are generally welcome to come visit schools at any time and there are other protections in place. Yet we still occasionally here of teachers having some hanky-panky with underage students. That is exactly what Scouts are trying to avoid.

reply
lurx: t... to FeedFwd 2012/06/12 20:02:02 (edited)

In spite of your labored attempts to differentiate the nature of teaching profession with scout masters, there really is no difference in the ability of parents to monitor the activities of the people placed in these positions.

reply
FeedFwd to lurx: t... 2012/06/12 20:08:55

That is true. In fact, both groups probably expect parents to have limited if any involvement, although both seem to encourage parental involvement to some degree. But their purposes and motivations are different. Education is compulsory and it doesn't really matter what parents think or who schools hire. Kids still gotta go to school or go to Juvenile Detention. Boy Scouts are entirely voluntary and will only recruit new scouts based on their reputation and their policies among other things. Do you not realize the difference between a private organization and a compulsory public one? I would imagine that if the BSA took a more relaxed view and compromised on its ideals and if parents and kids were clamoring for increased gay participation, they would change. I suspect it is there perception that they would lose more scouts than they would gain by opening up leadership positions to gays. whether that would actually happen or not, is irrelevant. It is a private organization.

reply
lurx: t... to FeedFwd 2012/06/12 20:11:28

"Do you not realize the difference between a private organization and a compulsory public one?"

...I would imagine that public organizations are far more accountable to the community that they represent.

reply
FeedFwd to lurx: t... 2012/06/12 20:41:45

Not in my experience. Ever visited the DMV or the Post Office? If a restaurant or a store gives poor service, the business goes away. Government agencies usually have a monopoly and could care less.

reply
lurx: t... to FeedFwd 2012/06/12 20:51:23

Sorry bud, but my sister is a teacher who has to constantly deal and interact with demanding parents.

..your whole argument is based on the premise that private organizations should be left to do as they please, without catering to the demands of the general public.

reply
FeedFwd to lurx: t... 2012/06/12 20:57:27

That is actually the opposite of what I am saying. I agree that public agencies should be responsive to the public they serve. And I'm sure many if not most of them are. But there is a different motivation for public employees than private employees. Private employees that under perform or under-serve customers are fired if that is legal to do. Sometimes labor laws make it difficult or more harmful to get rid of them, but businesses will not put obnoxious employees in customer facing roles and succeed. Public agencies and institutions aren't motivated the same way and it shows. Many public employees can give poor service without consequence and many do. I didn't say your sister or even most, although there is anecdotal evidence that it is a lot of public employees.

reply
lurx: t... to FeedFwd 2012/06/12 21:02:56 (edited)

"But there is a different motivation for public employees than private employees."

...I think that the recent gulf oil spill clarifies what that motivation is. The profits of the organization far outweigh the needs of the community that they represent.

reply
FeedFwd to lurx: t... 2012/06/13 13:17:58

Which is why we need some government. The government is there to provide redress to those who are harmed by somebody and to protect private property. To the extent that BP has been held accountable, it is a good thing. To the extent they have not, it is a political thing and when politicians are on the take, government protection is ephemeral, regardless how overbearing it may be.

reply
kudabux to FeedFwd 2012/06/12 20:31:01

+1
Boys, not girls? I kind of doubt that. Most news items show quite the opposite: priests molesting boys, rabbis molesting boys, coaches molesting boys. Girls are probably more likely to be molested by a family member and keep it secret, though.

reply
FeedFwd to kudabux 2012/06/12 20:39:43

You may be right. I don't know for sure. What do the statistics say? I would guess that some cleric abusing some kid would be more newsworthy than some unknown uncle abusing his niece or nephew in the eyes of most news organizations seeking ratings.

reply
kudabux to FeedFwd 2012/06/12 21:09:13

True. I didn't google the stats though

reply