Homosexuals Are Not Pedophiles

[AZMike]

Thank you.  What I was trying to say was that only one side of this particular 'battle' is willing to compromise.  The problem is that what's being compromised is values.  We clearly have disagreements about those values, but one side in this issue is trying to save a national institution based on values.  The other has a 'take no prisoners' approach, and it's working. 

 

Yep. If memory serves, the BSA did make a compromise two years ago.

 

Wait, you mean that wasn't enough for the LGBT community?

[BDPT00]

Precisely.  And whatever happens this round won't be enough.  There's blood in the water.

[NJCubScouter]

BDPT00 and AZMike: The new policy on openly gay youth (or clarification, since the BSA had made contradictory statements on the subject) was not a "compromise" on the issue of openly gay adults. It did not resolve the issue. I don't think anyone who supported local option for adults ever said it resolved the issue. While it is good to see that the BSA will not kick teenagers simply because they say they are gay, the change (or clarification) was a diversion from the main issue.

 

And BDPT00, when you say that what is being compromised is "values", the problem here - and why this continues to be an issue - is that there are "values" involved on both sides. Those who seek a change to the policy on adult leaders believe it is wrong to exclude someone simply because they are openly gay.

[packsaddle]

When two or more 'sides' are in conflict, compromise might be the only way to make any progress in many cases. My state has some of the worst highways in the nation because two 'sides' cannot agree on a solution. Neither side is willing to make any kind of compromise. Good leaders for the two sides are evidently willing to sacrifice safety on the highways for the sake of sticking with their 'ideals'. If that is what you think is good leadership, then I stand corrected.

 

In this case, the one side that claims to have compromised was starting from an 'absolute' position from which it was not possible to be more restrictive. Therefore the ONLY direction for any kind of change was in the direction things went.

You can call that compromise if you want, or you can refer to it in competitive terms. I did misconstrue what BDPT00 meant by his references and apologize for taking that the wrong way.

 

ONE MORE THING. In case you missed seeing this post in the 'recent posts' panel, the moderators unanimously decided that it would be good to de-emphasize this forum because it tends to detract from...you know...Scouting. This was my original suggestion and if anyone doesn't like it, you can take it up with me.

By the way, it was a kind of...compromise.......

[BDPT00]

'This was my original suggestion and if anyone doesn't like it, you can take it up with me.

By the way, it was a kind of...compromise....'

 

Funny ... sounded like a leader speaking. 

[packsaddle]

Reluctantly....

[moosetracker]

Thank you.  What I was trying to say was that only one side of this particular 'battle' is willing to compromise.  The problem is that what's being compromised is values.  We clearly have disagreements about those values, but one side in this issue is trying to save a national institution based on values.  The other has a 'take no prisoners' approach, and it's working. 

This statement just boggles my mind.. I could not for the life of me figure out what the conservative Christian side of this argument could ever state they are willing compromising anything.. I mean your argument is  that in order for the conservative Christians to be able to have their religious freedom, then no one else has the right to practice their own religious freedom. This is compromise??

 

Reading on, I guess some have guessed you mean the half-a$$ed vote of 2 years back.. First I agree with others that this was not a compromise because it still did not allow everyone the freedom to practice their own religious beliefs.. But, then I also half to ask, where was the "willing to compromise" from the opposing side when this vote took place.. I remember the same type of hand-wringing.. The same argument for no compromise.. The same sky-is-falling predictions.. Willing to compromise is either putting forth the suggestion for compromise, or at least when proposed by the other side graciously accepting (and then it is seen as both sides being willing to compromise)..

 

As for leadership not being about compromise, I disagree.. Sure you can lead as a monarch and make all the decisions and listen to no one else, perhaps even go so far as to kill the messenger or anyone daring mutiny..  But, most of the well run countries and well run companies and well run Troops and Patrols that I have seen have leaders who listen to the ideas and the concerns of their people, especially those people known for skills in certain areas.. Sure there are times in an emergency where a leader due to time constraints needs to make a decision and has no time for a discussion as to the best way to proceed.. But, for the most part a leader who values the ideas, opinions and skills of those who are following them will have a much more loyal and happier group of people.. They will also be able to make wiser decisions due to receiving input from various sources that will raise ideas the single leader may not have thought of themselves...  What is that old saying.. "Servant Leadership"..

 

As for the start of this thread, that at a certain age they are no longer a pedophile.. Perhaps I will give you that.. But, then they are rapists until the age of consent..  Again for the most part a person wanting to gain your trust to leave them alone with your kids will also not be an openly avowed rapist..  Whether they are gay, pedophiles or rapists, the fact you feel safer from them if they simply keep their secret hidden from you so that you don't know or suspect, does not in anyway protect you from anything.. I also still predict that if, as you say a rapist must be a gay rapist, in order to gain your trust even with the DADT policy lifted, these will not be the scouters that come out of the closet.. So be afraid... Be very afraid... Today, because a change tomorrow will not help or hurt you in that regard.

[Scouter99]

As for the start of this thread, that at a certain age they are no longer a pedophile.. Perhaps I will give you that..

Again, here is the depth of your indoctrination on full display.  It is not for you to interpret and you are not "giving" me anything if you get your brain in line with reality.  Pedophile is a word that means something specific, and what it means is set by the American Psychiatric Association.  If you have misgivings, take it up with them, I'm sure they're very interested in your thoughts on the matter and what you're willing to "give" them.

Do you even realize the irony of your comments about Christians being unwilling to compromise while you stick your fingers in your ears and assume your position on a political issue determines what a pedophile is or isn't?  Are you being funny on purpose?

 

But, then they are rapists until the age of consent..  Again for the most part a person wanting to gain your trust to leave them alone with your kids will also not be an openly avowed rapist..  Whether they are gay, pedophiles or rapists, the fact you feel safer from them if they simply keep their secret hidden from you so that you don't know or suspect, does not in anyway protect you from anything.. I also still predict that if, as you say a rapist must be a gay rapist, in order to gain your trust even with the DADT policy lifted, these will not be the scouters that come out of the closet.. So be afraid... Be very afraid... Today, because a change tomorrow will not help or hurt you in that regard.

 

That's very black and white for such an open-minded person as yourself. 

If Pascal Tessier, the self-styled "first gay Eagle Scout" (haw haw), who is 18, was dating a 16-yr-old when he turned 18, is he a rapist the day after his birthday for doing the same things he was doing the day before?  Not in your world.  In your world he's a "pedophile" because you have your own definition of pedophilia.  But let's say in the real world.  What does MooseTracker call an 18-yr-old high school senior who's sleeping with a 16-yr-old?  A rapist?  Harsh.

 

A rapist in which state, though?  You're talking, of course, about statutory rape.  But in some states statutory rape does not even exist as a legal concept.

And the age of consent is different in every state.  Let's go back to Pascal in New York, where the age of consent is 17.  He can sleep with youth legally.  In Virginia, a person can give consent at 15.  Maybe the BSA should peg youth and adult membership status to age of consent in each state.

 

More Freudian slips, again.  See the heading "Why You're Confused" in my OP.  You're pivoting to the big, scary word "rape" because your idea of potential problems is 50-yr-olds seducing or manhandling 14-yr-olds.  I noticed you ignored the fact that you were completely and utterly wrong about the book, but did you notice that 2 of the 3 gay men were quite young, 23 and 32. 

 

One of my former Scouts is 18, he's a Senior, he's dating a 16-yr-old Junior, they have sex, is he a rapist or a pedophile, MooseTracker?  Should I vilify him?  When he was 16, he was dating an 18-yr-old college freshman, was she a rapist?

If he were gay, and BSA allowed gay adults, and his boyfriend was also in the troop, should I kick him out if they don't break up?

I can see the headline now, and you can too if you're honest: "BSA Kicks Out Scout Leader for Love"  We're so hateful.

Let's keep him straight.  Should I refuse to register him as an ASM or College Reserve because he's a rapist and/or a pedophile?

 

You haven't thought about any of this, you're using a sledgehammer instead of a paintbrush.  It's because you don't care.  You don't care about the actual implications of admitting gay men as leaders—you just want it.  You want it without regard to anything.  So in arguing for it, you will say anything that makes it work in your head.  You call perfectly nice gay men "pedophiles" because then you can say "pedophiles will get in regardless"; you call perfectly normal sexual behavior rape because then you can say "rapists will rape regardless ~be afraid~!"

I'm not afraid, I'm perfectly clearheaded.  I'm not always good at expressing myself clearheadedly but I am.

 

Just as Athenian homosexuality grew out of the gymnasium culture; just as the Love that Dare Not Speak Its Name grew out of boarding schools, in the intense, long-term relationship system of Scouting, there will be affairs, seductions by leaders of youht and youth of leaders, and there will even be some rapes.  That is happening now because some gay men join without regard to the membership policy, it will happen much more once the policy is changed.

When they happen, you will refuse to accept that the men involved in them are gay men, you will call them pedophiles or rapists to deny the reality of the ideological stance you've taken. 

It's callous and cruel to the young men it will effect.  But you haven't thought about that, either.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Scouter99

[moosetracker]

I gave you a point for the "over the age of" being considered a pedophile, in saying that part of your argument I will accept.. So you are still arguing for something I have conceded, but we all know how clear headed you are...   Also your argument is ignoring the fact that in cub scouts and a few years of boy scouts they are pedophiles.. You can call them simply gay.. I will call them rapists...  I will don't consider a male rapist of a women as simply a heterosexual...  Sorry..  Yes someone 17 or 18 having CONSENTUAL sex with perhaps a girlfriend of 16 who they had the relationship before their birthday is a different story from a 17 or 18 year old using a date rape drug on a 16 year old, or just ignoring the word "NO" and physically forcing themselves on them..  Someone in my son's class in HS ran into this, and the father of the girl came close to having him prosecuted as a sex-offender.. The state worked hard for a settlement, then adopted a Romeo/Juliet law for the future.. But, a 23 or 32 year old with a 16 year old would be rape, with most states the Romeo/Juliet law only applies to a two or three year age difference..

 

Also you are still ignoring the main problem to your arguement.. Unless the sexual predator is trying to gain access to an underage youth through being an on-line predator through some chat room, or paying for prostitution of an underage prostitute (whether the underage person is willing or is being held against their will by a sex ring).. They gain access to their victims by being in a position as a youth leader (teacher, priest, coach, BSA leader) or they gain access by dating a women with children, or by having their own children lure their friends into their homes so their father can victimize them, or they victimize their own children.. They gain access by creating a persona that gets you as a parent or as a fellow scout leader to trust them..  Those people are already in scouting and allowing local option will not change the fact that they are already in scouting.. Also a persona to gain your trust will not be the openly avowed gay person, so don't expect these people to be the ones coming out of the closet when local option becomes the policy..

[Scouter99]

I gave you a point for the "over the age of" being considered a pedophile, in saying that part of your argument I will accept.. So you are still arguing for something I have conceded, but we all know how clear headed you are...   Also your argument is ignoring the fact that in cub scouts and a few years of boy scouts they are pedophiles..

Really?

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.

 

I'm beginning to wonder whether you read this thread at all.

 

 

You can call them simply gay.. I will call them rapists...  I will don't consider a male rapist of a women as simply a heterosexual...  Sorry..  Yes someone 17 or 18 having CONSENTUAL sex with perhaps a girlfriend of 16 who they had the relationship before their birthday is a different story from a 17 or 18 year old using a date rape drug on a 16 year old, or just ignoring the word "NO" and physically forcing themselves on them..  Someone in my son's class in HS ran into this, and the father of the girl came close to having him prosecuted as a sex-offender.. The state worked hard for a settlement, then adopted a Romeo/Juliet law for the future.. But, a 23 or 32 year old with a 16 year old would be rape, with most states the Romeo/Juliet law only applies to a two or three year age difference..

 

Also you are still ignoring the main problem to your arguement.. Unless the sexual predator is trying to gain access to an underage youth through being an on-line predator through some chat room, or paying for prostitution of an underage prostitute (whether the underage person is willing or is being held against their will by a sex ring).. They gain access to their victims by being in a position as a youth leader (teacher, priest, coach, BSA leader) or they gain access by dating a women with children, or by having their own children lure their friends into their homes so their father can victimize them, or they victimize their own children.. They gain access by creating a persona that gets you as a parent or as a fellow scout leader to trust them..  Those people are already in scouting and allowing local option will not change the fact that they are already in scouting.. Also a persona to gain your trust will not be the openly avowed gay person, so don't expect these people to be the ones coming out of the closet when local option becomes the policy..

 

As long as you continue to insist that the only scenario in which sex between scouts/leaders is non-consensual or predatory, there's not much point speaking to you about it.  As I said, you're determined to have gay leaders and your paradigm permits no space for anything else.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Scouter99

[moosetracker]

As long as you somehow try to argue that keeping openly avowed adult homosexuals out of BSA membership will somehow magically protect us from sexual predators, yes we will continue to disagree, because it is utter bull-pucky..

 

As for sexual attraction of similar aged scouts that is consensual, deal with it the same way the Venturing crew does with heterosexual attraction between it's members.. Again, It is no excuse to deny Charter Orgs who have different religious beliefs from you the right to practice their religious beliefs and welcome adults who they believe are a great role models to the youth regardless of the sexual preference..  

[packsaddle]

Internet has been down for a while. But catching up....if there was ever any question about the justification for pulling I&P off the 'front page', so-to-speak, you guys have just provided it. It's almost as bad as having Scalia give a luncheon speech.

[moosetracker]

Were you reading during lunchtime? tsk, tsk.. Stay away from I&P during lunchtime.

[CaveEagle]

Been away from the forum for quite a while.  The Gates Recommendate drew me back in to see what the Scouter community had to say about this.

 

Full disclosure: I come from a very conservative POV on this.   FWIW..

 

This entire issue/debate has been handled poorly. 

 

Point a)  Most of the gay rights advocates are just looking for a fight to tear down an organiation with God oriented value system.  Just like the Christian cake bakers.  How many gay couples REALLY want their cake from them anyway?  They were just looking for a fight to make the headlines and were lawyered up well before they went cake shopping.  Same goes for this issue.  How many gay kids/adults are really affected by this?  I know of a Scout DE who was at a Pack reqruiting event and had a gay couple there that seemed to be "fishing" for some sort of a fight.  From what I gather, my friend handled it well, did not give them any roadblocks to participation, and they just went away. Seemingly had no realy interest in joining in the end.  I am sure there are examples of gay youth/adults that just want to be part of scouting.  ***thats not who I am talking about here, so back off with the flame-throwers***

 

Point b) Why can't conservatives be smarter about politics?  Even folks who I agree with, just tend to drive me nuts!  For me, its pretty easy to separate the LGBT%&(#$ agenda from our souting agenda.  Do I want a gay adult man to be alone with my 15yr old son in the woods?  Heck no!,  but I don't want him alone with ANY adult in the woods (even an adult woman), so it should really be a non issue.  I would totally understand if you did not me to go hiking (alone) with your 16yr old daughter!  We already have rules in place and largely enforced to deal with these scenarios.  99.99% of issues must have evolved from an egregious breakdown in our existing rules.   Any potential sexual predator would probably never want to operate within a unit that is following BSA's existing rules.

 

Point c) What about gay youth?  Well, I think this is actually a bigger problem on the whole. I have been aware of many more youth/youth issues over the years than youth/adult.  So (as a conservative), why is the BSA not working to improve general decentcy standards?  I get it, all our scouts are not angels. I betcha many more boys were shown adult material at scoutcamp than we care to admit. 

     We want o help kids grow, and not toss them out at the first 4-letter word.   BUT..  Over the years, I have been trained to death about GTSS and YP.  But heard nary a peep about the expectations of how our youth are expected to behave.  Vulgarity, or overt sexuality should have NO place in our units. Anyone really want to debate this?   So why don't we do a better job setting expectations in this area with youth, Adults (and parents). 

 

conclusion:  I really don't know the right answer about whether we should follow Gates' recommendations.  I just think both the current state, and the most likely fallout from this are both pretty bad.  For me the only real way to save scouting in the USA is to get this debate off the front page of our 24hr news media.  Lets face it! the BSA has a giant target on our backs.  There are ways to improve the safety for our youth (and adults) that will NOT give the gay rights activists the media frenzy they want. 

 

Let me be clear..      I really don't have an issue with a gay youth/adult participating in my scouting program.  I do, however, expect them to maintain a high level of respect for my values.  And.. to keep ANY sexual dialogue or actions completely away from the context of scouting.  *No different than what I would expect from a hetero!

 

We have all heard:  "Dont get into fight with a pig.  You both get muddy..   But only the pig likes it!"

 

To me..  the BSA has looked pretty muddy for the last few years. 

 

CE

Edited May 28, 2015 by CaveEagle

[moosetracker]

Thanks caveEagle - If that was a conservative viewpoint, I am pleasantly surprised because I think it was well thought out..