The Boy Scouts upheld the ban on Gay Scouts and Gay or Lesbian Scout leaders. Good Idea?
CAPISCE
2012/07/19 00:17:11
|
|
|||||
|
19 votes
|
|
83% | ||
|
4 votes
|
|
17% | ||
And something that surprised me: in the majority of man-boy cases of sexual assault, the majority of those engaged in this type of paedophilia still classified themselves as heterosexual when dealing with any other form of sexual relationship: they did not consider themselves homosexual in any way until they engaged in that act.
What I think all this means is that if a scout does get molested, it is most probably going to be a heterosexual that does it.
Which to me means that, whatever your and my views on gays having prominent roles in children's lives are, this ban was not done out of fear of sexual molestation.
And just to clarify your last sentence, a person can be both heterosexual and paedophilic - they aren't mutually exclusive. As I said above, research seems to suggest that roughly 95% of paedophiles class themselves as heterosexual.
Heterosexual just means you are attracted to people of the opposite gender, it makes no allowances for age.
"error on the side of caution" but with the vast majority of padeophilia cases being heterosexual in nature, if their aim was to reduce the chance of child molestation, then banning heterosexuals would logically be the step to take (I'm not arguing they should btw, im just following the logic).
My point is that the ban on homosexuals in the Boy Scouts most likely has little or nothing to do with paedophilia.
If you have any actual evidence to the contrary, please feel free to share, otherwise your 'certainty' is nothing but a house built of straw.
And the statistics isn't a story - its cold honest data backed up by numerous studies and research into the issue by people more knowledgeable than either of us. It's not 'if only', it's a fact - banning homosexuality within the scouts will remove a small percentage of those who might perpetrate such horrendous acts, it'll still leave most of those intact. Unless of course you have evidence to the contrary rather than just prejudice.
My argument was that up until that point, the majority of padeohpiles engaged in a homosexual act had always considered themselves heterosexual, so a ban on 'out and proud' homosexuals will do virtually nothing to reduce the instances of paedophilia.
Some research I've been reading also suggests that both homosexual and heterosexual men and women who abuse children often don't see the child as male or female but as some third type of person - it's the age that matters rather than the gender and that a lot of male-male abusers are heterosexual in that they find grown women sexually appealing but not grown men, which I don't fully understand but it's what the doctors, psychologists etc who work with the b*st*rds claim.
2. Don't use 'we' to make yourself seem bigger than you are.
3. My opinion is equally as valid as yours. In fact, since mine if backed up with evidence and data, I could argue it's factually more valid.
4. What potential influence are you scared of homosexuals giving children? Are you aware that exposure to homosexuality will neither increase nor decrease your chil'ds chances of being gay - they either are or are not homosexual regardless of external influences.
5. Have never attacked the Boy Scouts, all I've asked is what the real reason for the ban is and attacked any conclusion linking homosexuals and paedohpiles as scientifically unsustainable.
6. Don't throw a strop and hope it'll hide the fact you've yet to provide any actual reliable proven evidence that says that all homosexuals are paedohpiles.
I'm not saying this is my view, I'm merely quoting the research done in this area. I'll admit it struck me as weird when I first read it, but from what the research shows, a number of people who conducted homosexual acts of paedophilia had considered themselves completely straight up until that point and with regards to adult relations, still have no interest in men - it's as if something in their heads doesn't view boys as male but as something else and therefore the act doesnt count, to them, as homosexual (even when it obviously is).
Regardless of our views on this research though, going back to the original topic, I have yet to see any evidence on this that the ban was done to reduce the threat of paedophilia or that a ban even would have an effect on the level of paedophilia since most cases of child molestation are heterosexual in nature.
BTW, there has been no 'scientific method of discovery' here. That would imply experimentation, control groups, hypothesies and repeated testing. All I'm saying are statistics and facts.
Of course, if you have facts and statistics to argue your point of view that all gays are paedophiles, please feel free to share it with us...
curious interest in claiming for homosexuals some imagined "right" to mingle with the youth in a Boy Scout troop?
Incidently, (to address those two examples) if we are to give examples of single incidents and use them to justify the banning of large groups of people from working with children then we'd have to ban:
Priests (Francis Phillip Tullier, a 78-year-old convicted child molester who faced hundreds of molestation counts involving young girls; 50.In November 2011, Christopher Jarvis, a Catholic Church pedophile abuse investigator, admitted to possessing, making, and distributing indecent images of children. and had more than 4,000 images of children from ages 10-12 on his camera memory stick and laptop; The Society of Jesus’ Pacific Northwest unit that agreed to pay a record $166.1 million to about 470 people who were sexually and psychologically abused as children by Jesuit priests from the 1940s to the 1990s)
Political aides (Robert Decheine, Chief of Staff to Steve Rothman was sentenced to 18 months in prison for soliciting sex from a minor).
Football Coaches (Why should Sandusky's sexuality be the only defining thing about him?)
Anyone from Yemen (more than a ...
Incidently, (to address those two examples) if we are to give examples of single incidents and use them to justify the banning of large groups of people from working with children then we'd have to ban:
Priests (Francis Phillip Tullier, a 78-year-old convicted child molester who faced hundreds of molestation counts involving young girls; 50.In November 2011, Christopher Jarvis, a Catholic Church pedophile abuse investigator, admitted to possessing, making, and distributing indecent images of children. and had more than 4,000 images of children from ages 10-12 on his camera memory stick and laptop; The Society of Jesus’ Pacific Northwest unit that agreed to pay a record $166.1 million to about 470 people who were sexually and psychologically abused as children by Jesuit priests from the 1940s to the 1990s)
Political aides (Robert Decheine, Chief of Staff to Steve Rothman was sentenced to 18 months in prison for soliciting sex from a minor).
Football Coaches (Why should Sandusky's sexuality be the only defining thing about him?)
Anyone from Yemen (more than a quarter of girls in Yemen are married before the age of 15),
Family members of any scouts (according the Office of the Attorney General, half of molesters are family members of the children),
Art and music teachers (look at the case ragarding the Horace Mann School in New York)
In fact any public school employee (US Department of Education quoted that as many as 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a public school employee between 1991 and 2000).
People from the Department of Homeland Security (Brian J. Doyle was indicted for seducing what he thought was a 14-year-old girl on the Internet)
Politicians (Mel Reynolds: Indicted for sexual assault and criminal sexual abuse for a relationship with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer in 1994. He was convicted of 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography in 1995; Gerry Studds and Dan Crane having underage sex with congressional pages in 1983).
And if you ever watched 'To Catch a Predator', then why not ban firefighters, staff sergeants, computer engineers, vice presidents of cancer research companies, marine corps snipers, video editors for Nickelodeon, softwear engineers, church music directors, retired police officers, assistant district attorneys, Tae Kwondo instructors, truck drivers, sheriff deputies from Alabama, court administrators, bodybuilders and air force mechanics then since these were all examples of the paedophiles revealed by the show?
And why is it only the minority of paedophiles that are homosexuals that gets your anger - surely all paedophiles deserve our equal contempt?
Are you a member of the "Men and Boys Club"? Perhaps having been accused or convicted of similar acts? Latent pedophile, and struggling with the urge? Really, you are stretching the defense to bounds that
needs to be explained.
It's called the internet and a search engine. Give me any topic and half an hour and I can direct you to a large range of data and information on it. Welcome to the 21st Century, try to catch it up at some point.
"Your interest and defense is extraoridnary".
All I've defended is the right of all homosexuals to not all be automatically branded as paedophiles and asked others to prove how a ban on homosexuality will reduce the incidents of paedophilia. Maybe you find implementing the ideals on the constitution and the laws of both our countries to be extraordinary, I do not.
"Are you a member of the "Men and Boys Club"?"
Never heard of it. Perhaps you copuld enlighten us based upon your obvious experience with it?
"Perhaps having been accused or convicted of similar acts? Latent pedophile, and struggling with the urge? Really, you are stretching the defense..."
Oh please, don't be so pathetic. All I've done is argue that the evidence (that's evidence, not just blind prejudice) does not support the conclusion that homosexuals are any more likely to be paedophiles than anyone else. However, if you think I have defended paedophilia at any point, please quote precise exa...
It's called the internet and a search engine. Give me any topic and half an hour and I can direct you to a large range of data and information on it. Welcome to the 21st Century, try to catch it up at some point.
"Your interest and defense is extraoridnary".
All I've defended is the right of all homosexuals to not all be automatically branded as paedophiles and asked others to prove how a ban on homosexuality will reduce the incidents of paedophilia. Maybe you find implementing the ideals on the constitution and the laws of both our countries to be extraordinary, I do not.
"Are you a member of the "Men and Boys Club"?"
Never heard of it. Perhaps you copuld enlighten us based upon your obvious experience with it?
"Perhaps having been accused or convicted of similar acts? Latent pedophile, and struggling with the urge? Really, you are stretching the defense..."
Oh please, don't be so pathetic. All I've done is argue that the evidence (that's evidence, not just blind prejudice) does not support the conclusion that homosexuals are any more likely to be paedophiles than anyone else. However, if you think I have defended paedophilia at any point, please quote precise examples of where I have endorsed such a heinous act.
Now a few questions for you:
1. Do you actually have any evidence that homosexuals are more likely to sexual abuse boy scouts than non homosexuals?
2a. Is in fact anything that you've said based upon anything more than blind prejudice against gays?
2b. Thinking about your attitude towards gays, have you ever heard the quote about those who 'doth protest too much?' (If not look it up).
3. Have you ever been diagnosed with paranoia?
family married latent homosexuals and, after a child or two, the
boy moved on to the homosexual relationship where responsibilities were less. Yes, I know about the "protest too much" and I find you
explicable for that very reason.