Homosexuals Are Not Pedophiles

[Scouter99]

Scouter99 the book is on abuse of scouts in BSA by PEDOPHILES, not gays... Most have a persona of the family man husband, wife children, church goer, civic minded..  Pedophiles will never be your openly homosexual person because of people like you who equate the two words of homosexual and pedophile as the same.. A pedophile takes on a persona that will allow parents and children to trust him and think nothing about letting their children be alone with them..  An openly homosexual scoutmaster will not have that type of trust, at least I don't see it in any near future..

 

 As for your book, if these men abused children then they are not gay, they are pedophiles. It is that simple.

 

Gay men are no more a threat to teenage boys then I am to the teenage girls in my troop.

 

What is Pedophilia

Pedophile is a specific condition with a specific definition.  It is the exxclusive sexual attraction of a person to "children," that is to say, biological children who have not yet reached puberty.  The DSM, which governs the definition of pedophilia, sets that age to 13.  The physical reality is that girls have been entering puberty at an increasigly younger age for decades, and boys have now been observed to be following suit.

 

A "minor" is a child in the vernacular and legal sense, but once a person enters puberty, they are not biologically a child.  A person who has entered puberty is of no sexual interest whatever to a pedophile.  Pedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent children precisely because they have no smell, no hair, no fluids.  A pedophile is no more attracted to an adolescent person than you and I are to a pig.

Once puberty begins, a person is sexually mature, whether they are 18 (or the local age of majority) or not.  If you see a wispy mustache on a boy's lip, you may presume he is already producing semen and sperm.  I know 5th graders with that benchmark.

 

What is a Homosexual

A homosexual is a person whose primary sexual attraction is to sexually mature members of the same sex.  A pedophile is not a homosexual, a homosexual is not a pedophile. 

Confusion (and outright intellectual dishonoesty among partisans) often occurs in discussions about sexuality when we talk about sex acts between people of the same sex. If a female pedophile engages in sex with a male boy, the act was heterosexual, the woman is a pedophile, not a heterosexual.

A man whose sexual attraction is to males that are pubescent (13+) and/or post-pubescent is not a pedophile, he is simply a gay man.

Some want to create a new classification, ephebophiles or hebephiles.  This is contested and highly controversial precisely because it is the ironic opposite of de-classifying homosexuality as a disorder.  Sexual attraction to sexually mature people is not biologically disordered, it is socially unacceptable, and the move to carve it out as a new diagnosis is cultural rather than scientific.

Pederasty is sex with a young man, not a pre-pubescent child.  The etymology is shared and confusing, but a pederast is not a pedophile.  It's just one more word for a certain type of a homosexual sex act.

 

Opportunism

Sexuality is irrelevant to opportunism.

Some people just want to get off—I'm sorry there's no scoutlike way to phrase it.  A heterosexual man might take advantage of any opportunity for sex.  His sex acts might be homosexual, but his sexuality is still heterosexual.  He might couple with a 16-yr-old young man, he's still heterosexual.  He might couple with a 10-yr-old boy, he's still a heterosexual.

Some people are sadistic and just want to hurt people, and sex is one way to do that.  A heterosexual psycho could engage in homosexual sex acts without any sexual attraction to men.  If the male victim is sexually mature, the psycho isn't gay, he's a psycho.  If the male victim is a child, he's not a pedophile, he's a psycho.

 

What is a "Boy"

You see the difficulties of language that surround this issue.  In the 1910 sense of the word, a boy was what we call a young man or teenager: a young male entering puberty and thus manhood in the age before a concept of adolescence with confusing striations and intersections of biological, legal, and cultural defintions of child, minor, adult, etc.

As I go on, I will choose the word that makes what I'm saying most clear, which might be anachronistic forwards or backwards.

 

Now break it down to BSA stratification:

Cub Scouts: 1st–5th grade.  An abuser is either a pedophile or an opportunist (of any sexuality) because virtually all of the potential victims are pre-pubescent.  The few early bloomers will hold no interest to a pedophile, but would be targets of opportunity to opportunists. 

I say "abuser" here because sex is illegal with all people of Cub Scout age in all situations.

Boy Scouts: 10/11–17years old.  Virtually every member of a Boy Scout troop is sexually mature; pedophiles are not sexually attracted to males who are Boy Scout age.  The leader is either a homosexual, an opportunist, or a pedophile targeting only the youngest boys and late bloomers. 

I say "leader" here rather than abuser because in some states, sex between an adult (18+) and someone as young as 15 might be perfectly legal.

Venturing/Sea Scouts: 14–21 pending age change to 14–18.  In the case of male youth, the leader is either gay/bisexual, or an opportunist.  In the case of female youth, the leader is a lesbian/bisexual, a heterosexual man, or an opportunist.

 

Why You're Confused

There was no largescale organized political movement for homosexuals until after the Stonewall Riots in 1969.  But there were cultural movements.

In the late 1800s in England, homosexuals began to push at the boundaries of social attitudes through artistic and intellectual movements.  In England, they were called "Uranians" and included many famous writers like Oscar Wilde and his lover Alfred Douglas, who penned the famous line "the love that dare not speak its name" to describe their love for young men, or the painter Henry Tuke.  Others took to the British schools where they could enact their Plato-inspired ideas of mentorship coupled with sex in an environment where opportunistic sex between isolated schoolboys was already rampant.  In Germany, a sort-of forerunner of Scouting was formed, the Wandervögel (migrating birds), a outdoors and character club in which sex between men and older boys, then older boys and younger boys played a large role.  The poor Mediterranean towns along North Africa, Greece, and Southern Italy became hotbeds of sexual tourism, going well into the 1970s in Italy.  In Germany, homosexuals made great strides unti lthe Nazis came to power.

The idea was to change ideas about masculinity and the role of men in the lives of younger men as mentors through love.  That ideal ran headlong into the cultures it sought to change and made little headway, continuing underground even until today.

It was exactly what the naysayers must defend gay rights against even if no one brings it up first: A social campaign to make homosexuality acceptable by having sex with young men—by inculcating boys into sex with men.  Not children, not pedophilia, but homosexuality.  It was as improbable as it sounds, but we're talking about hopeless romantics.

 

After Stonewall, homosexuals who sought change took to politics rather than poetry.  The idea of running a successful political campaign to make homsexuality tolerated, much less accepted, by the mainstream based on sex with their sons was obviously out of the question.  Still, the decision by groups to dissociate from pederasts was extremely controversial within the gay community.  The founder of the first modern, political gay rights organization, Harry Hay, marched with the banner "NAMBLA walks with me" in the 1986 LA Pride parade.  He was not a fringer, he was a founding father and elder statesman of the gay rights movement.  The writer Allen Ginsberg, another giant of American culture, and a homosexual commented that "Attacks on NAMBLA stink of politics, witch hunting for profit, humorlessness, vanity, anger and ignorance…I’m a member of NAMBLA because I love boys too – everybody does, who has a little humanity."

But when a movement becomes political, idealism/ideology must always be sacrificed to the goal.  In his book Gay Man's Worst Friend, gay writer Karl Andersson chronicles the deliberate shrinking of gay identity in order to gain political acceptance via his own excommunication from the gay community when he left the mainstream gay press to publish his own magazien about young men (the Kindle version is cheap). 

Gay activists excised their boy-loving ancestors to pursue the approach that has given them the poltiical gains we see today: "We're just like you."  Love is love.  It worked, it doesn not erase reality.

 

But popular memory doesn't just disappear, and boy-lovers have never quite gone quietly.  Everyone knows the affinity homosexuals have for the young, who are the most virile in a "community" that stresses eroticism above all else, and anyone who knows the history of gay activism knows its roots and where it will eventually end up again.

 

Are all homosexuals pederasts?  No.  But all pederasts are homosexuals.  And the Boy Scouts has always been and will always be a fertile hunting ground for them.  When experts say that Scouting is a target for pedophiles, they are speaking in an erroneous vernacular sense of the word out of ignorance or political correctness: a 14-yr-old is not the object of desire for pedophiles.  The BSA is a fertile hunting ground for gay men of particular tastes, and even for gay men who might mean no harm, because, as David Bowie so eloquently put it "love is careless in its choosing."  How many of you have fallen head-over-heels without ever having set out deliberately to do so?

 

With very few, obvious exceptions, everything I have said here is simple fact.  It is the stuff of dictionaries and diagnostic manuals, and a matter of historical fact.  So why are you confused?  Because you want to be.  It is a matter of good will that in a way can be commendable, but it is misguided. 

It is a childish gullibility that allows a perfectly intelligent person to say something perfectly moronic like:

They were all pedophiles.. I guess if you look for a needle in a haystack you are able to find 2 or 3 examples, but those are needle in haystack examples.. 99% of the pedophiles happen to be heterosexuals.. So we should ban all heterosexuals from being adult scout leaders.. You never can be too careful..

when given a list of men who had sex with sexually mature young men, not children.

 

It is because of this willful ignorance that I hold those who would force homosexuals onto the BSA in particular disdain.  Because they put at very real risk the lives of millions of young men, burning them on the alter of politics in defiance of reality.

 

I do not hate gay people.  I am at this very moment sat 10 feet away from a gay man, he is my little brother and I love him, always will, will never tell him he is a pervert or any such, and hope he lives the happiest life anyone can have.

 

I do not believe that gay people should be persecuted.  I have never been a macho man, I have been bullied as hard as any gay kid because as far as the bullies were concerned I was a gay kid.  I am a bachelor today and as far as many of my scouts and fellow leaders are concerned I am gay because I fit too many of their stereotypes about what a gay man is.  Homosexuals deserve the same privacy that anyone else deserves.  But their desire for acceptance does not entitle them to infringe upon the liberties of others.

 

I am a classic liberal and conservative.  The freedom of association is fundamental to all freedoms and to the dignity of individuals.  Gay activism works in direct contravention of that priniciple and that is why I find it outrageous, equally or moreso than the argument for safety.

 

I simply understand that like the boarding school, the barracks, the ancient Greek gymnasium, the BSA is a pressure cooker, and like all of those places, gay men have already and will again use it for sex—and that has nothing to do with nature or nurture. 

It is not responsible to open the doors to gay men.

[Scouter99]

Now, as for the Moosetracker's charge that the book I cited, and the specific incident it outlined were "pedophiles", here is the passage.  Anyone who wants to argue that the men described here were not gay, but pedophiles, can save their breath and send a letter to the American Psychological Association, because they are arguing not against me but against the definition of homosexuality and pedophilia and making a boob out of themselves.

Where the author says "boys" you are reminded again that we are talking about Boy Scouts, boys 11-17, virtually all sexually mature.  His language is sloppy—the victims were not children, they were 15.  The gay men were not creepy old perverts, Harry Cramer was 23, Woodall was 32.

In the end, as I said at the start, this anti-BSA book shows exactly the full scale of the issue, but it seems to have no idea because, like Moosetracker, Cambridgeskip, and so many of the rest of you, he has simply ignored the actual meaning of the words he's writing in favor of political campaigning that excommunicates a certain kind of gay person in defiance of reality.  In his case it is not to advance gay rights, but to paint BSA as an organization that callously accepted "pedophiles" into its ranks.  But these simply are not pedophiles.  They are gay men.

 

You can read the BSA Perversion Files of all three men at
http://documents.latimes.com/harry-cramer/

http://documents.latimes.com/richard-stanley-halvorsen/

http://documents.latimes.com/raymond-woodall/

 

And in the LA Times database of Perversion files you will find hundreds more gay men and opportunists.  Their victims' ages obliterate all efforts to mislabel them pedophiles.

 

Chapter 6: A Perfect Place

Lewis Sialle listened to his friends and grew nervous. He was sitting among several men who, like himself, were gay. A couple of those men, however, also liked boys. They talked about boys now, and the conversation took an odd turn. Someone suggested forming a Boy Scout troop.
People create troops for all sorts of good reasons, but Sialle knew that the motive here was to "provide them with boys . . . for their sexual pleasure."1 He warned his friends that they shouldn't get involved, with the Boy Scouts, because it was "an American institution and I knew there would be trouble." Raymond Woodall told Sialle he was paranoid.2 That fall they helped create a troop at a local Presbyterian church. Many of the boys were just the type that Baden-Powell had hoped to reach. At one point, only 4 of the 18 troop members had fathers living at home. Their families were poor. Few of the parents had the time or desire to help run the troop. Sialle's friends easily took control.

Woodall and another friend, Harry Cramer, became assistant Scoutmasters, while Richard Halverson became Scoutmaster. Sialle joined the troop committee and stayed nervous. The leaders quickly made Troop 137 a fun place for needy boys. "They went into the homes, talked to the parents, invited the young boys to become Scout members," says New Orleans District Attorney Harry Connick. "They were very careful in selecting children who came from homes where they were in great need of activities. They provided things for these children that their parents could never give them—bicycles, uniforms, trips."3

They also introduced some boys to sex. Halverson, Woodall, and Cramer routinely had sex with at least four of their Scouts, usually at the men's homes. They took pictures of their escapades. They teamed up with pedophiles on both coasts, swapping photos, stories, and sometimes boys. They turned the troop into a child sex ring with national connections.4

Pictures are perhaps the most dangerous of all possessions for pedophiles—and the most coveted of all evidence for police. In case of arrest, pictures are irrefutable proof of abuse, and often lead to child porn charges and heavy sentences. Most adults who have sex with children either avoid memorializing the events on film, or they hide the pictures well. But pictures turn up in the oddest places. In 1977 a Colorado troop leader got in an accident and took his car to a garage for repair. The repairman found lurid photos of children in the car and called police. The Scoutmaster and assistant Scoutmaster were arrested.5

At the least, picture-takers usually use Polaroids so they don't have to go someplace like Fotomat to develop the film. In August 1976, Harry Cramer brought a roll of film to Fotomat.

Thus began the destruction of Troop 137. The employees who developed the roll quickly saw trouble: pictures of a 15-year-old boy having sex with two men. Fotomat called the police. The police got warrants to search the men's homes. There, among the Scoutmaster handbooks, they found magazines with such titles as Naked Boyhood and Boys for Sale. They also found hundreds of pictures of nude boys and boys having sex, along with card files bearing the names and addresses of boys and of men who were interested in boys. Halverson, it turns out, kept "neat, orderly files." Those files got a lot of people in trouble: seventeen men were eventually charged, including an Episcopal priest in Tennessee and a millionaire in Massachusetts. All four of the New Orleans men were convicted on sexual assault charges.6

The New Orleans sex abuse scandal was the first to become a public relations disaster for the Boy Scouts. Troop 137 disbanded. For years other troops in the area had trouble drawing and keeping Boy Scouts. The media covered the case heavily, with headlines referring to the "Scout Sex Case" and "Gay Scout Ring." One local Scout volunteer wrote to a local newspaper complaining about the coverage, saying, "It has been a most frustrating time for the great number of people involved with Scouting in our area, as we've had to watch the other media groups here . . . malign this tremendously worthwhile character-building youth movement by the way in which they've handled the reporting of this matter. It seems to me they had to be able to see what they were doing to Scouting."7

Connick, a former Scout, tried easing public fear by explaining that "this was an isolated incident. People shouldn't use this an an example of what the Boy Scouts stand for."8
In reality, the media were often gentle when a Scout leader was arrested for abuse. Newspaper editors, like Scout volunteers, saw these incidents as aberrations in a wonderful youth program. When an Oklahoma Scoutmaster was arrested in 1971 for sodomizing a member of his troop, the media didn't mention his Scout connection, prompting the local Scout executive to write to national: "We can report that no news release by radio, TV. or newspaper used the movement for sensational purposes.
We have personally expressed our appreciation to them."9
Playing down the problem was a common tactic when abuse cases hit the news. In the Colorado case, which broke open with the photos found in the wrecked car, a local BSA official told a newspaper that it was only the second such case he'd heard of in Scouting in eight years. "It's not widespread," he said.10 He probably didn't know it, but that year, 1977, 44 of the 64 adults put in the Confidential Files were put there for allegedly molesting children.11 Of course, the BSA had several hundred thousand volunteers, so those figures may still not have met the man's definition of widespread. Yet the problem was far more common than anyone was admitting.
The New Orleans disaster showed Scout officials what men who are attracted to boys had long realized: packs, troops, and posts are great places to find sex partners. Scouting gives the men a legitimate excuse to be around boys they find arousing. The Boy Scouts isn't the only children's group that is so vulnerable.

 

[From here, the author moves back to arguing his thesis of the evil BSA now that he has given the anecdote]

Edited May 23, 2015 by Scouter99

[DuctTape]

So with all of that, the arguments based on fear of abuse to scouts would then be extended to heterosexual women as scout leaders. Or to heterosexual males as venturing crew leaders with mixed gender crews.

Edited May 23, 2015 by DuctTape

[qwazse]

Folks are afraid of me culling the girls. Supposedly another adult female in camp precepts that. :/

 

The LGBTQIA community (I think that's the new official acronymn for the entire constituency) is indeed proposing something new. Along with the redefinition of marriage, comes a redefinition of the terms of sexual expression. This sexual expression may be latent in adolescence but society should affirm it. And that includes affirmation by inserting adult constituents into youth communities -- without actually assaulting those youth.

 

When a fella on Bryan's blog says outright and with no shame that he had same-sex relations with his former SM (among others) once he was legal, it doesn't instill confidence among folks who aren't very permissive.

[BDPT00]

The definitions above need to include the rest of the LGBTQIA ... XYZ (leaving room for an ever-growing definition) menu.  Let's spell it all out, and then ask ourselves if this is the role model we are seeking for our young boys.  Pedophilia has nothing to do with this argument (although there's room for a P in the menu if it somehow becomes a misunderstood and persecuted minority).  As they say in Shark Tank ... "I'm out."   

[AZMike]

When a fella on Bryan's blog says outright and with no shame that he had same-sex relations with his former SM (among others) once he was legal, it doesn't instill confidence among folks who aren't very permissive.

 

Yikes. Just yikes.

 

I check out Bryan's blog but didn't see that on the thread about Gates' comment. Possibly deleted because it didn't fit the narrative.

[walk in the woods]

The LGBTQIA community (I think that's the new official acronymn for the entire constituency)

Urban dictionary has LGBTQQIAAP, FWIW.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=LGBTQQIAAP

[Scouter99]

So with all of that, the arguments based on fear of abuse to scouts would then be extended to heterosexual women as scout leaders. Or to heterosexual males as venturing crew leaders with mixed gender crews.

Those concerns ("fear" is a diminutive used to rob opposition of reason) are already extended to women, and here is precisely where even the BSA runs into PC bizarro-land logic.  We are told that females cannot share tents with males, that they must use separate latrines or have blocked out times for the same building, that they cannot be alone with males, etc.  Male crew leaders must have a female leader present if a female youth is present.  Why?  Because males are attracted to females and vice versa. 

 

But when BSA admitted openly gay youth we are told that no special accommodations are mandated, and indeed no special accommodations should be made, because that would imply that gay boys are sex fiends who can't control themselves, and that would be homophobic institutional bullying.

 

If there is no reason to separate gay boys and men from the sex of their attraction, there is no need to separate females from males.  BSA deliberately gives gay males access to men that they do not give women.

 

 

Folks are afraid of me culling the girls. Supposedly another adult female in camp precepts that. :/

 

The LGBTQIA community (I think that's the new official acronymn for the entire constituency) is indeed proposing something new. Along with the redefinition of marriage, comes a redefinition of the terms of sexual expression. This sexual expression may be latent in adolescence but society should affirm it. And that includes affirmation by inserting adult constituents into youth communities -- without actually assaulting those youth.

 

When a fella on Bryan's blog says outright and with no shame that he had same-sex relations with his former SM (among others) once he was legal, it doesn't instill confidence among folks who aren't very permissive.

Exactly, and does anyone believe that they suddenly fell in love the day after he turned 18?

 

I do not have a philosophical problem with an 18-yr-old exercising their own wishes in their own life.  But BSA is not the place where gay men should be meeting gay boys.  Mainstream homosexual activists insist that gay youth need to see gay adults in positive roles for good self esteem; gay men who are frank about it tell it like it is: "If the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world." -Harry Hay.

 

Showtime's TV series Queer as Folk was a landmark for homosexuals in its depiction of them as serious people rather than comic relief queens or the various other "problematic" stereotypes.  It was adapted from a British series.  In both the US and British version, a main story arc is the relationship between a 15-yr-old (UK)/high school senior (US) and an advertising executive.  The boy was voted #3 in top 25 gay TV characters.

This was the #1 show on Showtime's roster and was fawned over.

 

It is all about inculcation.

 

Pride centers have already tried to form troops http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/01/17556143-boy-scouts-utah-gay-pride-center-cant-sponsor-troop?lite

[qwazse]

I check out Bryan's blog but didn't see that on the thread about Gates' comment. Possibly deleted because it didn't fit the narrative.

  it was in reply to one of Bryan's earlier thread. I don't have the patience for digging through his old posts. Sorry for not making that clear. Fairness to scouting magazine, they don't delete comments like those. Opting to let them get buried in the slew of daily threads.

The definitions above need to include the rest of the LGBTQIA ... XYZ (leaving room for an ever-growing definition) menu.  Let's spell it all out, and then ask ourselves if this is the role model we are seeking for our young boys.  Pedophilia has nothing to do with this argument (although there's room for a P in the menu if it somehow becomes a misunderstood and persecuted minority).  As they say in Shark Tank ... "I'm out."   

Cousin Robbie makes the same slippery slope argument. I don't think it's entirely fair. The permissive sexuality movement is evolving boundaries as it advances. Less permissive folks may not trust the ability of people to maintain said boundaries (adults of minority orientations with too few similar adults -- coupled with the mobility of hormonal adolescents -- does sound like gasoline on fire), but I give them credit for trying.

[BDPT00]

 

The permissive sexuality movement is evolving boundaries as it advances.

 

And therein lies the problem.  This movement reminds me of the "The Blob."  No matter its speed, it just keeps on moving.  As long as one is willing to compromise (as we have done, and will do again), the Blob will keep coming until it destroys whatever is in its path.  I don't believe that that movement's intentions are to improve Scouting (which has also been known as a movement, but now seems to have lost its direction). 

Where are we headed?  Are we going to lead, or are we going to follow? 

[packsaddle]

 

 

 

And therein lies the problem.  This movement reminds me of the "The Blob."  No matter its speed, it just keeps on moving.  As long as one is willing to compromise (as we have done, and will do again), the Blob will keep coming until it destroys whatever is in its path.  I don't believe that that movement's intentions are to improve Scouting (which has also been known as a movement, but now seems to have lost its direction). 

Where are we headed?  Are we going to lead, or are we going to follow? 

 

 

So then by all means LEAD. If your ideas and reasoning are sufficient to persuade others then make your case and carry the day. If all you can do is wring your hands and lament the fact that there are people who don't agree, then you have failed in your argument and don't deserve to carry the day.

For decades now, all sides of this argument have had the opportunity to craft their arguments and they have had access to the same resources. Whatever the outcome, it will be because one side or the other has done the better job of understanding their opponents' argument as well as their own, and have utlilzed those resources to better advantage. It is a competition of ideas and the better competitor deserves success.

So do what the other side did when they were in the minority position. Learn from them. Craft a better argument...or live with the consequences of the lack thereof.

[AZMike]

So then by all means LEAD. If your ideas and reasoning are sufficient to persuade others then make your case and carry the day. If all you can do is wring your hands and lament the fact that there are people who don't agree, then you have failed in your argument and don't deserve to carry the day.

For decades now, all sides of this argument have had the opportunity to craft their arguments and they have had access to the same resources. Whatever the outcome, it will be because one side or the other has done the better job of understanding their opponents' argument as well as their own, and have utlilzed those resources to better advantage. It is a competition of ideas and the better competitor deserves success.

So do what the other side did when they were in the minority position. Learn from them. Craft a better argument...or live with the consequences of the lack thereof.

 

Or find some activist judges that have the same views as you.

[packsaddle]

Responding with yet another complaint, I hope you recognize, is not an effective way to weaken my argument.

[BDPT00]

Your argument has two opposing forces.  One wins.  The other loses.  Is that victory?  Is that compromise? 

The lead or follow question was rhetorical.  Scouting prides itself on teaching and demonstrating leadership. To me, the moral high ground gave in to social media.  That's not leadership, and the line in the sand continues to move. 

[packsaddle]

Where is the spirit of compromise in the part of those who oppose these changes? What ideas have they offered as compromise modifications?

On the contrary, the opposing view to these changes has failed to do much more than gripe about the changes and make apocalyptic predictions as they wring their hands. THAT is not leadership either.