-->
@ethang5
Too many yeah, but do you know the percentage? I don't think it's that high. No scoutmaster I know is a sex abuser and I'm an Eagle Scout.; been in scouting since 4th grade.
Boy Scouts Murdered
Posts
Total:
47
What are you citing here? What part of the conversation does this have to do with? How does it involve homosexuality?Men are not allowed into women's restrooms.
Not according to anything you've cited.
The law you sited requires "purient intent." It is not a blanket ban on men in women's locker's/restrooms.So you can enter one and there will be no problem till you exhibit some purient intent?
According to the law, yes.
Then do you retract the claim?Why would I? It was illegal in America till just a few years ago, and it is still illegal in some countries. Child welfare administrators still routinely prohibit single men from adoption. Thosevalidate my case.
[Citation Needed]
You have consistently claimed that the law applies to heterosexuals but not homosexuals.Some laws yes.
[Citation Needed]
Homosexuals say so too. That is what they argued about gay marriage. They claimed gays were not able to marry whom they loved. They called the law unequal.
Said law applied to heterosexuals as well. Two heterosexual men could not get married under that law.
Now, if as you say, the law was fine equitable, why did we need to change the laws on marriage? Even you observed that the law was exactly the same for all men, gay and straight.
Because the existing law was unconstitutional and unconstitutional laws should be removed.
See, when it comes to marriage, you want the sexual orientation of the person taken into account. But when it comes to pedophilia, suddenly sexual orientation means nothing.
I do not want any law to take into the account of the sexual orientation of the person.
The law as always assumed men were attracted to women. This is why homosexuals had to fight for equal rights in marriage because there was no law for them, there was no law for people sexually attracted to their own gender.
There are no laws at all for anyone based on sexual attraction.
This requires discrimination based on sexuality.No sir, it only required silence from ignorance. The law was not discriminatory, there was simply no law.
That's my point. The law does not discriminate based on sexual orientation. Ergo there can't be a law that affects one person of a sexual orientation but not another.
Otherwise you have to concede that the law currently does apply to homosexuals in the same way it applies to heterosexuals.The amount of faith you have in your thinking ability is not justified. If the law applied to both equally, there would not have been the social outcry for marriage rights, or a bunch of states now rushing to establish laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman.
Clearly false because the law did apply to both equally and there was still the outcry.
You can pretend that you can walk into a woman's restroom and there would be no problem if you think that would help your argument, that is s obviously false I need say nothing in rebuttal.I have reality on my side. The reason for our current reasonable restrictions, is due to our natural sexual attraction for the opposite gender.Now that we have homosexual out in the open and freely expressing their homosexuality, we need new laws that, just like the marriage laws, take into account who homosexuals are attracted to, and the risks that poses to children.
We do not.
The BSA, terrified of being labeled homophobic, used age and gender instead of sexual orientation to achieve the same goals as a law that protected children from homosexual pedophiles.Of course, that will not protect children in the BSA. There will still be sex abuse cases, because they are still holding on to the PC illusion oromagi spelled out in his wonderful posts.The nation's ethos has moved past the BSA. Scouting will die out in America. It will then have sex scandals in other countries and the process of falling away will repeat there.
In terms of membership, Scouting has been on a consistent decline since the early 70's. I'll admit that, while the general principle is praiseworthy, it's implementation and binding to local religious organizations have hampered it. The BSA is consistently behind the curve in keeping up with the changing culture, and consistently feels outdated in terms of its policies.
The implementation of its Youth Protection Program in the 80's was a good step in the right direction, and the removal of some of its more draconian policies (religious, sexual, and gender discrimination) are also good, they might be too little, too late.
Your core claim, that open admission of homosexual leaders will necessarily result in an overall increase in risk, remains unfounded and unproven.
You have attempted to use the fact that homosexual pedophiles are homosexual (an uncontested truism) to imply that open admission of homosexuals will necessarily result in open admission of homosexual pedophiles and thereby increase the risk to Youths.
In terms of absolute numbers, perhaps, but only because the presence of a potential offender in any group is non-zero, so any increase of membership brings with it an increase in risk. The only way to eliminate risk would be to eliminate the program.
However, we are talking about potential offenders for which existing law and existing regulation is not an impedance. They joined and committed their offenses without regard for the existing prohibitions. The idea that some potential offender wanted to join the BSA to commit offenses but was restrained by existing prohibition is completely nonsensical.
The only people deterred by the prohibition are the people who care about the prohibition in the first place! We're talking about people who care about rules and order and are willing to follow by them. This means that the new members joining as a result of this prohibition being removed will come almost exclusively from these ranks. Ranks of perfectly normal, law abiding citizens. Given the influx of people unlikely to offend. The incidence of such claims should be expected to crease, relative to the overall membership of the organization.
Frankly, the idea that a homosexual person is an inherent risk simply because of their homosexuality is offensive.
-->
@Alec
1/50th of 1%
The BSA boasts of 35 million adult volunteers since 1911. Of these, The NY Times reports 7,819 BSA perpetrators.
7819/35 mil= .0002 or 2/100ths of 1%
Of 130 million boy scouts, 12,254 have reported sex abuse or
9/1000ths of 1%.
By comparison, 16% (probably higher) of boys report experiencing sexual abuse before they turn 18, the overwhelming number of cases taking place in the home. Statistically, boys scouts have always been far safer from abuse away at the Boy Scouts than at home.
-->
@oromagi
If sex abuse is so rare in BSA, then how come the organization went bankrupt with all these accusations? I mean, the Catholic church has them too, but they aren't bankrupt.
-->
@Alec
Because you're comparing an organization that has been consistently hard up for money for decades and an organization that is one of the richest and most powerful organizations in the entire world. It's like asking why a poor person has so much trouble affording food and rent when Bill Gates doesn't seem to be having any trouble.
-->
@Alec
--> @oromagiIf sex abuse is so rare in BSA, then how come the organization went bankrupt with all these accusations? I mean, the Catholic church has them too, but they aren't bankrupt.
I explained that above. The BSA declared bankruptcy so that they don't have to pay the judgements against them. BSA expects lawsuits to amount to $100-500 million in damages and they say they control $1-10 billion in assets. Bankruptcy makes any payouts far less likely and if they do pay it will pennies on the dollar. Bankruptcy also prevents any new lawsuits.
The Catholic Church bilks its victims out of any payout, too.
The Archdiocese or Diocese of Portland, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Santa Fe, and Guam, Tucson, Spokane, Davenport,
San Diego, Fairbanks, Wilmington, Gallup, Stockton, Helena, Duluth, Great Falls, St. Cloud, Rochester, and Harrisburg
have declared bankruptcy in recent years. Globally, the non-payment of lawsuits by the Catholic Church is far larger.
-->
@ethang5
--> @oromagi
I found several in less than 5 minutes. https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/1301187001
Yup
17-year-old client who said he was abused in 2018.
Let's note that the abuse began in 2012, 3 years before the BSA permitted gay troop leaders.
Can you list others?
Govt. publications are always the first to change to reflect PC thinking. For you, PC thinking is "mainstream". But so what? Logic is a better guide to what is correct than political correctness. Tomorrow, the Journal of Pediatrics might be calling pedophilia wonderful, and appealers to authority like you will fall right in line.
Political correctness (adjectivally: politically correct; commonly abbreviated PC) is "a term used to describe language, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society. In public discourse and the media, the term is generally used as a pejorative with an implication that these policies are excessive or unwarranted."
Ethan blames the 2015 admission of gay leaders for "murdering" the Boy Scouts. I have shown that the claim has no merit- The BSA was heading for bankruptcy long before 2015. Ethan responds that the US Govt, The Journal of Pediatrics, and I are merely trying to avoid offending gay people instead of offering evidence supporting his claim that gays murdered the Boy Scouts.
APPEAL to AUTHORITY is "insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered."
Logical Form:
According to person 1, who is an expert on the issue of Y, Y is true.
Therefore, Y is true.
When all the experts say Y is true and only ethang5 says that Y is false, that is not an appeal to authority. That is a persuasive argument that Y is true.
And the declining membership, sex abuse cover-ups, and the withdrawal of the Mormon church was caused by the admission of gay scout leaders. Even the church says so.
Well, the LDS departure is a bit like Trump saying he's never heard of Lev Parnas. Keep in mind that the Mormon church was the first and has always been the largest sponsor of the Boy Scouts since 1911, operating more boy scout troops than any other organization for the whole of BSA's history. Consequently, Mormons have always had a disproportionate influence over BSA governance- more than any other outside body. The Mormons lost influence in the BSA precisely because their leadership had failed to handle the sex abuse so badly.
Let's note that that the LDS itself very likely has a much larger child sex abuse problem than the Boy Scouts. The Mormons have an old tradition of child marriage dating back to Joseph Smith's 7 child brides and Brigham Young's 8 child brides. Utah ranks first in child sex abuse- about 1,860 reports in 2014 alone.
Membership peaked in 1970 with 4.7 million scouts and has steadily declined over 5 decades- long before the sex abuse became public (2012).
from 1999 to 2015, scout membership declined 34.2% (more than 2% per year) but only 1% (about 23,000) in 2016, the year after gay leaders were allowed. The policy change actually reduced the rate of membership decline in the following year.
How do you know how much male on male sex actually takes place when women aren't available?
Exhaustive personal field studies.
This is the same delusional PC idea that homosexuality is somehow more virtuous.
Well the argument comes from Socrates, the founder of moral philosophy, who was neither delusional nor politically correct.
Soon the PC lemmings will come in, and for half, I will be a pedophile, and for the other half, a homophone, but none will address the issues. And after they drown me out from sheer yelling, will consider they cancelling a "win".
A homophone for what I wonder? Heathen? Eatin'? You can count on me to refrain from calling you a pedophile even if you continue to merely repeat unsubstantiated opinions instead of offering evidence.
It all started when they let women into their program
no boy wants to associate with girls while doing boyish stuff
Simple biology
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I didn't make a thread about your loony conspiracy theory of a secret homo pedo cabal infiltrating the BSA over the last 100 years to "murder" the organization from the inside.If you were not interested in loony conspiracy theories then you would not have made this thread about your loony conspiracy theory of a secret homo pedo cabal infiltrating the BSA over the last 100 years to "murder" the organization from the inside.
You think I did, but as I told you, I'm really not interested in your loony theories. There are several people post and waiting for responses, so if you have nothing to say other than your delusional take on what the thread is about, we've heard you.
Have a good day.
-->
@Alec
Some scout masters you know may be abusers. They tend to hide the fact that they are abusers.No scoutmaster I know is a sex abuser and I'm an Eagle Scout.; been in scouting since 4th grade.
I didn't want to mention a percentage because putting percentages on a thing like this is awful. One single case of abuse is too many. No percentage is acceptable.
And you are right, whether the BSA is declaring bankruptcy from insolvency or proactivity, they are having to do so because of the abuse.
-->
@drafterman
Men are not allowed into women's restrooms.
Not according to anything you've cited.
The criminal law I cited mentioned restrooms specifically.
So you can enter a women's restroom and there will be no problem till you exhibit some purient intent?
According to the law, yes.
Good luck with that. You don't sound like a peeping tom at all.
You have consistently claimed that the law applies to heterosexuals but not homosexuals.
Some laws yes.
[Citation Needed]
Citation provided. The law assumes that people of the same gender would not have purient intent.
Homosexuals say so too. That is what they argued about gay marriage. They claimed gays were not able to marry whom they loved. They called the law unequal.
Said law applied to heterosexuals as well. Two heterosexual men could not get married under that law.
Heterosexual men did not want to marry.
But two homosexual men who wanted to could not marry under that law. If the no law took sexual orientation into account, how were homosexual men ignored?
Even you observed that the law was exactly the same for all men, gay and straight.
Because the existing law was unconstitutional and unconstitutional laws should be removed.
First, let's note that you are now calling a law you said was exactly the same for all men, unconstitutional.
Second, what law was removed? No law was removed for gay marriage.
And Third, in what way was the law unconstitutional? The only way you could call it unconstitutional is if it should have taken homosexuality into account.
I do not want any law to take into the account of the sexual orientation of the person.
Then you must be against gay marriage. Because other than sexual orientation, there was no reason to change marriage laws, or think it was unconstitutional.
Are you against gay marriage? If not, why not?
There are no laws at all for anyone based on sexual attraction.
What do you think purient intent is?
The law was not discriminatory, there was simply no law.
That's my point. The law does not discriminate based on sexual orientation. Ergo there can't be a law that affects one person of a sexual orientation but not another.
Then on what basis did you call marriage laws unconstitutional? Two men of different sexual orientations, one could marry the object of his sexual desire, the other could not. Is this difficult to understand?
Clearly false because the law did apply to both equally and there was still the outcry.
Then in what way was it unconstitutional Draft? Homosexuals disagree with you. They think the law did affect them negatively and wanted it to take their sexual orientation into account.
we need new laws that, just like the marriage laws, take into account who homosexuals are attracted to, and the risks that poses to children.
We do not.
And yet you say that the implementation of [the BSA] Youth Protection Program in the 80's was a good step in the right direction. How so? Because all the new laws did was to make it harder for men with a sexual attraction to male children to abuse them.
And in fact, as fueled by the crisis of homosexual pedophilia, that is exactly what the new laws were supposed to do.
If we needed new laws in the BSA, why do we not need them in the general society? Are boys at risk only in the BSA?
open admission of homosexuals will necessarily result in open admission of homosexual pedophiles and thereby increase the risk to Youths.
This is an uncontestable truth. Male homosexual pedophiles come from the pool of male homosexuals, and as they don't wear signs, we cannot let one in without also allowing the other.
And history has borne out this truth. We now have hundreds of abuse cases in court, and hundreds waiting to file.
The only way to eliminate risk would be to eliminate the program.
This is a lie. There would be no sexual risk to boys if there were no male deviants who are sexually attracted to their own gender.
What you mean is that there is no politically correct way to eliminate the risk.
And this is how political correctness is detrimental to society. It makes people deny real risks if acknowledging those risks violate PC dogma.
So we have the lives of hundreds of children being crushed, and the PC yahoos are advocating for inclusion of MORE males with a sexual attraction to males. Really?
However, we are talking about potential offenders for which existing law and existing regulation is not an impedance.
Exactly! Because when the laws were made, homosexuals were considered an insignificant factor.
They joined and committed their offenses without regard for the existing prohibitions.
They were able to join because homosexual pedophiles were not barred, and committed their offenses because they had a sexual attraction to boys.
The idea that some potential offender wanted to join the BSA to commit offenses but was restrained by existing prohibition is completely nonsensical.
That is your argument in praising the new rules and regulations. My argument is the opposite. It will do nothing to safeguard boys.
The only people deterred by the prohibition are the people who care about the prohibition in the first place! We're talking about people who care about rules and order and are willing to follow by them.
All of this is moot if men with a sexual attraction to males are barred from being boy scout leaders. Keep the people who don't care about rules and order and are unwilling to follow by them out, and there will be no violations.
Frankly, the idea that a homosexual person is an inherent risk simply because of their homosexuality is offensive.
What is offensive is this sanctimonious stance when you know and have acknowledged that every sexual orientation has inherent risks to someone.
Men have been traditionally restricted from women because of heterosexual sexual attraction. That you are willing to be obtuse about is immaterial.
I am not offended if I cannot become a girl scout leader, I would not find it offensive if women object to me entering their private restrooms.
Were I a single man, I would not be offended in the least if a parent refused to allow their 12 year old daughter to sleep over at my house.
I am not crippled by PC nonsense, and know that it is reasonable for society to assume that my heterosexuality produces potential risks. I have no reality-denying dogma I have to follow.
-->
@oromagi
You can count on me to refrain from calling you a pedophile
Thanks. I will wait with baited breath on the homophobe charge.
How do you know how much male on male sex actually takes place when women aren't available?
Exhaustive personal field studies.
Lol!! I think I can rest my case.
Men are not allowed into women's restrooms.Not according to anything you've cited.The criminal law I cited mentioned restrooms specifically.
But not gender. It restricts why you can enter a restroom, not who.
So you can enter a women's restroom and there will be no problem till you exhibit some purient intent?
Legally? Correct.
According to the law, yes.Good luck with that. You don't sound like a peeping tom at all.
"Peeping Tom" implies purient intent.
You have consistently claimed that the law applies to heterosexuals but not homosexuals.Some laws yes.
[Citation Needed]
Citation provided. The law assumes that people of the same gender would not have purient intent.
It does not.
Even you observed that the law was exactly the same for all men, gay and straight.
Exactly. Thank you for the concession.
Because the existing law was unconstitutional and unconstitutional laws should be removed.First, let's note that you are now calling a law you said was exactly the same for all men, unconstitutional.
Correct.
Second, what law was removed? No law was removed for gay marriage.
Defense of Marriage Act at the Federal level, overturned in US v. Windsor and various state-level bans, overturned in Obergefell v. Hodges.
And Third, in what way was the law unconstitutional? The only way you could call it unconstitutional is if it should have taken homosexuality into account.
I call it unconstitutional because it violated the constitution. DOMA was ruled as violating the Fifth Amendment and Obergefell ruled that state-level bans violated the 14th Amendment.
I do not want any law to take into the account of the sexual orientation of the person.Then you must be against gay marriage. Because other than sexual orientation, there was no reason to change marriage laws, or think it was unconstitutional.
I agree there was no reason to change the marriage laws, which is why I am glad that those marriage laws (that were changed to ban Same Sex Marriage) were ultimately recognized as unconstitional.
Are you against gay marriage? If not, why not?
I am not against gay marriage because there is no reason to be against it.
There are no laws at all for anyone based on sexual attraction.What do you think purient intent is?
sexual interest or arousal
We do not.And yet you say that the implementation of [the BSA] Youth Protection Program in the 80's was a good step in the right direction. How so?
Because it limits the opportunity for any adult of any gender or affiliation to abuse any child of any gender or affiliation.
Because all the new laws did was to make it harder for men with a sexual attraction to male children to abuse them.
There are other kinds of abuse than sexual.
And in fact, as fueled by the crisis of homosexual pedophilia, that is exactly what the new laws were supposed to do.If we needed new laws in the BSA, why do we not need them in the general society? Are boys at risk only in the BSA?
Then take it up with your local senator.
open admission of homosexuals will necessarily result in open admission of homosexual pedophiles and thereby increase the risk to Youths.This is an uncontestable truth. Male homosexual pedophiles come from the pool of male homosexuals, and as they don't wear signs, we cannot let one in without also allowing the other.And history has borne out this truth. We now have hundreds of abuse cases in court, and hundreds waiting to file.
All prior to the open admission of homosexual leaders.
The only way to eliminate risk would be to eliminate the program.This is a lie. There would be no sexual risk to boys if there were no male deviants who are sexually attracted to their own gender.
I didn't say "sexual" risk. I said "risk."
What you mean is that there is no politically correct way to eliminate the risk.
That is not what I meant to say, no.
And this is how political correctness is detrimental to society. It makes people deny real risks if acknowledging those risks violate PC dogma.So we have the lives of hundreds of children being crushed, and the PC yahoos are advocating for inclusion of MORE males with a sexual attraction to males. Really?
Homosexuals are no more an inherent risk to boy than heterosexuals are.
However, we are talking about potential offenders for which existing law and existing regulation is not an impedance.Exactly! Because when the laws were made, homosexuals were considered an insignificant factor.
No, because they do not care about the existing laws and regulations. They have no desire to comply with them.
They joined and committed their offenses without regard for the existing prohibitions.They were able to join because homosexual pedophiles were not barred, and committed their offenses because they had a sexual attraction to boys.
They were, in fact barred. They were able to join because they did not reveal their sexual orientation.
The idea that some potential offender wanted to join the BSA to commit offenses but was restrained by existing prohibition is completely nonsensical.That is your argument in praising the new rules and regulations. My argument is the opposite. It will do nothing to safeguard boys.
But your argument requires the above statement to be true. It is an implicit assumption of your claim, whether or not you realize or acknowledge it.
The only people deterred by the prohibition are the people who care about the prohibition in the first place! We're talking about people who care about rules and order and are willing to follow by them.All of this is moot if men with a sexual attraction to males are barred from being boy scout leaders.
Given the number of cases from the time when homosexuals were barred from being leaders, the issue is most certainly not moot.
Keep the people who don't care about rules and order and are unwilling to follow by them out, and there will be no violations.
How do you propose to do that?
Frankly, the idea that a homosexual person is an inherent risk simply because of their homosexuality is offensive.What is offensive is this sanctimonious stance when you know and have acknowledged that every sexual orientation has inherent risks to someone.
Which does not mean a person with a given sexuality is prone to sexual abuse.
Men have been traditionally restricted from women because of heterosexual sexual attraction. That you are willing to be obtuse about is immaterial.
Men have been traditionally restricted from women because of a lot of outmoded social concepts about gender roles.
-->
@drafterman
The criminal law I cited mentioned restrooms specifically.
But not gender. It restricts why you can enter a restroom, not who.
And the only ones who would have prurient intent in a men's restroom are homosexual men.
"Peeping Tom" implies purient intent.
So does a man in a woman's restroom.
The law assumes that people of the same gender would not have purient intent.
It does not.
Sure it does. That's why a woman would not get arrested for entering a woman's restroom when a man would.
And Third, in what way was the law unconstitutional? The only way you could call it unconstitutional is if it should have taken homosexuality into account.
I call it unconstitutional because it violated the constitution.
Lol. I didn't ask why you called it unconstitutional slick, I asked, "In what way was the law unconstitutional?
Both of us know you've lost this point Draft.
There are no laws at all for anyone based on sexual attraction.
What do you think purient intent is?
sexual interest or arousal
So when the law talks about purient intent you say is sexual interest, that isn't based on sexual interest?
There are other kinds of abuse than sexual.
How many of them have hundreds of cases pending in court right now?
If we needed new laws in the BSA, why do we not need them in the general society? Are boys at risk only in the BSA?
Then take it up with your local senator
I'm not debating my local senator, I'm asking you. And my local senator does not think that men in women's restrooms are just dandy.
We now have hundreds of abuse cases in court, and hundreds waiting to file.
All prior to the open admission of homosexual leaders
Untrue. Many are after. And the ones before are also crimes by homosexual pedophiles.
The only way to eliminate risk would be to eliminate the program.
This is a lie. There would be no sexual risk to boys if there were no male deviants who are sexually attracted to their own gender.
I didn't say "sexual" risk. I said "risk."
I said sexual risk. What I said was correct. There would be no sexual risk to boys if there were no male deviants who are sexually attracted to their own gender.
Sexual risk is the risk the BSA is attempting to mitigate.
What you mean is that there is no politically correct way to eliminate the risk.
That is not what I meant to say, no.
I know. What you say has to jive with the PC dogma that homosexuals are sexually moral. But talk about eliminating all risk is tautology. The risk we are talking about is sexual risk.
Homosexuals are no more an inherent risk to boy than heterosexuals are.
Sorry, but this is obvious nonsense. Heterosexuals are not sexually attracted to males, thus pose no inherent risk to boys. Homosexuals on the other hand, pose a grave sexual risk to boys.
They have no desire to comply with them.
But they do have a desire for young boys. Which is why they do not care about the existing laws and regulations and have no desire to comply with them.
They were, in fact barred.
Were this true, we wouldn't have hundreds of cases proving it untrue right now.
They were able to join because they did not reveal their sexual orientation.
Yes Draft, so that they could abuse young boys. Now, try and follow the logic.
Q. Why did they not reveal their sexual orientation?
A. Because they would have been barred.
Q. Why would they have been barred?
A. Because before PC stupidity, people knew that homosexuals posed a threat to young boys.
Q. What has been the empirical results of this deception?
A. Hundreds of young boys molested.
Question to Drafterman: Why do you think homosexual pedophiles hid their sexual orientation?
Drafterman: Because they did not want to be barred.
Question to Drafterman: Why did they think their sexual orientation would cause them to be barred?
Drafterman: Because of the stranglehold religious organizations had on the BSA.
No matter how long I question him, homosexuality will not come up. I won't be surprised to find out that Draft believes all the cases of pedophilia in the BSA are by heterosexual men who are not sexually attracted to males.
Political correctness requires one to hold such outlandishly illogical beliefs.
Given the number of cases from the time when homosexuals were barred from being leaders, the issue is most certainly not moot.
Homosexuals were obviously never barred. And you admitted they hid their sexual orientation.
Keep the people who don't care about rules and order and are unwilling to follow by them out, and there will be no violations.
How do you propose to do that?
Allow no scout leaders who could be sexually attracted to boys.
...every sexual orientation has inherent risks to someone.
Which does not mean a person with a given sexuality is prone to sexual abuse.
Laws are made on possibility, not how "prone" people are. And we do know that of the group of men prone to molest boys, 99.99% are homosexual.
Men have been traditionally restricted from women because of a lot of outmoded social concepts about gender roles.
PC word soup. Men have been traditionally restricted from women because men are sexually attracted to women.
And if homosexual men had been restricted from little boys, the BSA would not find itself facing death today.
-->
@ethang5
Question to Drafterman: Why do you think homosexual pedophiles hid their sexual orientation?Drafterman: Because they did not want to be barred.Question to Drafterman: Why did they think their sexual orientation would cause them to be barred?Drafterman: Because of the stranglehold religious organizations had on the BSA.
Do you want to have a conversation with me or a strawman conversation of me?
-->
@drafterman
Has there been a difference?
Draft, I think both of us have fully stated our opinions on the matter. We disagree still but you did cause me to look at some things a little differently.
I like your direct style though you will hedge a bit when the questions get too tough. You are a very good debater. I thoroughly enjoyed this. Thanks.
Hope there are no hard feelings.