drafterman

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.

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 provided. The law assumes that people of the same gender would not have purient intent.

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?

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.

This is especially prevalent among the Protestants, who have a prideful notion of taking centuries of sacred tradition and biblical interpretation, among countless saints, into something any laymen can distort for their own purposes

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.

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?

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. Those 

validate my case.

You have consistently claimed that the law applies to heterosexuals but not homosexuals.

Some laws yes.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This requires discrimination based on sexuality.

No sir, it only required silence from ignorance. The law was not discriminatory, there was simply no law.

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.

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.

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.

--> @Lunatic@oromagi@Speedrace

Reply

maf

Because there are no laws against it

And as we just established, due to the threat, there should be. Just like with heterosexual men and women.

and almost no facilities would be equipped to handle that restriction.

Why not?

You praised the same restrictions in the BSA.

And is that an acceptable excuse to a parent of a molested child? We couldn't afford it?

As with all other instances of my use of a pronoun, the thing it is referring to is abundantly clear. Please stop asking.

Your "it" could mean that it is possible for  non-heterosexual males to be prone to attraction, or it could mean that it is possible that non-heterosexual males are prone to molestation of underaged girls.

[Citation needed]

Those restrictions were always there for men with girls. The so called "new" restrictions did in fact take sexual attraction into account. 

[Citation needed]

The law always applied to heterosexuals  and their preferred sexual targets. Now it was amended [In the BSA] to cover homosexuals too.

[Citation needed]

Article - Criminal Law

§3–902.     Visual surveillance with prurient intent

(5)     (i)      “Private place” means a room in which a person can reasonably be expected to fully or partially disrobe and has a reasonable expectation of privacy, in:

9.      another place of public use or accommodation.

                  (ii)     “Private place” includes a tanning room, dressing room, bedroom, or restroom.

         (6)    (i)      “Visual surveillance” means the deliberate, surreptitious observation of an individual by any means.

                  (ii)     “Visual surveillance” includes surveillance by:

                           1.      direct sight;

They've had to double their administrative costs.

[Citation needed]

At all times, there shall be two-deep leadership:  Source. You, this thread

The law prevents men from entering women's lockers/restrooms.

Check.

The law prevents single men from adopting girls.

No longer necessary for my argument.

The law discriminates based upon the sexual orientation of the male.

Untrue. I said the law should take sexual orientation into account, not that it does.

Certainly.

Then why are homosexual men allowed into the same bathrooms with boys?

The laws have nothing to do with my comment on denigration. 

It was my stating the laws that made you think I was equating the two.

The exact causes of pedophilia are unknown.

Two questions.

1. Are homosexual pedophiles sexually  attracted to boys?

2. Is homosexual pedophilia possible without sexual attraction?

Do you think non-heterosexual males are ever prone to attraction and molestation of underaged girls?

It's possible, sure.

What's "it's" Draft?

Do you know what "prone" means?

If the person is not heterosexual, how would he be attracted to girls, much less prone to it?

The latter is as illegal for homosexuals as it is for heterosexuals. The law, in this case, is the same for both.

Untrue. And I can show you. Was the law the same for both before gay marriage was legalized?

But merely having sexual attraction does not make you prone to pedophilia.

Did you not say, "The exact causes of pedophilia are unknown."?

I'm not calling it the norm. I'm saying we should have laws because of the minority of people that do pose a homosexual pedophilic threat.

We do.

Tell me one.

Something usually at the discretion of the facility at hand,

Not for men in the girls locker rooms Draft. There is a difference right there.

These restrictions apply equally without regard for sexuality of the adult or child.

Those restrictions were always there for men with girls. The so called "new" restrictions did in fact take sexual attraction into account. They did this because men were abusing little boys.

The current rules of the BSA do not comment on sexual attraction. They do not need to because the apply to all adults with respect to all children regardless of sexuality or gender.

Lol. They did exactly what I'm proposing. The law always applied to heterosexuals  and their preferred sexual targets. Now it was amended to cover homosexuals too.

Access to children of either gender is restricted regardless of the gender or sexuality of the adult.

Then either children are sometimes unsupervised, or the BSA has an army of transgendered people looking after children.

At all times, there shall be two-deep leadership: no adult shall be alone with, or have one-on-one contact with a scout. This includes inside and outside of Scouting events and covers online communication.

This sounds suspiciously like the BSA thinks being homosexual does make one prone to pedophilia.

This might even be the real reason they cannot sustain the costs. They've had to double their administrative costs.

Please cite a single law of this type.

Men are not allowed to enter a female restroom.

And, while you're at it, a single law that forbids single men from adopting girls.

No need. I've proven my point.

Because of the minority of people that do pose a threat.

Thank you. Now do the minority of homosexual pedophiles not also pose a threat to young boys?

Because the prohibition wasn't created with me in mind.

No one knows your sexual proclivities  Draft. The law was made in case you were a pedophile.

The laws I am proposing are not with specific persons in mind either. Therefore no one should feel denigrated.

I didn't say "Heterosexuality does not make a male prone to sexual attraction."

I said: "Heterosexuality does not make a male prone to sexual attraction and molestation of underage girls."

What makes a man prone to sexual attraction and molestation of underage girls." Draft?

Do you think non-heterosexual males are ever prone to attraction and molestation of underaged girls?

Yes it does, which is why we are able to identify pedophilia as an aberration.

Pedophilia is defined differently in different societies, and differently over time. It is the act that is against the law, not the attraction.

We should have similar laws for homosexual attraction that we have for heterosexual attraction.

We do.

We do not. A picture of a topless 16 year old boy on your computer causes no alarm, one of a 16 girl gets you 5 to 7. Please be realistic.

You seem to think that pedophilia comes part and parcel with having sexual attraction at all.

Pedophilia is not possible without sexual attraction.

I assume you are a heterosexual which you claim makes you prone to sexual attraction to under age girls.

No sir. I claimed it makes sexual attraction to underaged girls possible. Are you so wedded to PC dogma you will now say sexual attraction doesn't happen till you know the age of the girl? Or that it suddenly starts on her 18th birthday?

Insinuating I am a pedophile would not make your argument any less incorrect. It would simply mean you are being beaten by a pedophile.

I'm just letting you know that that mind set is NOT the norm, but there is help for people with that mindset.

I'm not calling it the norm. I'm saying we should have laws because of the minority of people that do pose a homosexual pedophilic threat.

Homosexuals are no more allowed to molest boys in locker rooms than heterosexuals are.

Heterosexuals are not sexually attracted to boys. Homosexuals are, yet they are allowed into boys locker rooms.

Quite obviously, "they" refers to "the same restrictions."

There are few restrictions on men for boys that are similar to the restrictions on men for girls. They are not the same.

The rules in the BSA do not address sexual attraction because they don't need to. The rules apply to all adults in a blanket manner and covers all adults regardless of sexual attraction.

This is both untrue and silly. We have the rules we do because of sexual attraction.

It is slanderous to suggest that pedophiles are currently able to freely abuse children in the BSA.

How is it slanderous when pedophiles ARE currently able to freely abuse children in the BSA?

I am not.

How do you know you're not? If neither homosexuality or heterosexuality plays a role in sexual attraction, how can you tell what you are?

Nothing is "different" for homosexual males.

Do heterosexual males have the same access to the underaged targets of their sexual desire as homosexuals do?

Why was it a problem in the BSA Draft?

Because there weren't protection mechanisms in place to protect children at the time. Now there are.

Like what Draft? Tell us one "new"  protection mechanism.

Or when a person tries to inflate the likelihood or rate of occurrence of some event happening.

Do you know the rate or likelihood Draft? Because to know that I'm inflating, would require you to know the rate.

But you are being inconsistent. The rate is immaterial. When I asked you, "Why do we have these restrictions?"

You answered, "Because of the minority of people that do pose a threat."

Do we know the rate? No. The possibility of the threat is enough for the restrictions to be in place.

A boy will be sexually molested only if the molester has a homosexual sexual attraction.

There is a minority of people that do pose this threat. Every single one of them is homosexual.

There should be laws governing homosexual men with boys, just like the current laws governing heterosexual men with girls.

This no more makes homosexuals predisposed to molesting young boys than it makes heterosexuals predisposed to molesting young girls.

Yet we have restrictions on men for young girls. Stop repeating yourself and answer my questions. Why do we have these restrictions?

The policy was implemented as a response to combat these issues.

How would allowing homosexuals into leadership positions combat homosexual pedophilic abuse??

I think it's denigrating to suggest that homosexuals are prone to sexual abuse of minors.

Do you find it "denigrating" that you are not allowed to enter a girls locker room? Does that prohibition mean you are prone to sexual abuse of minors? If not, please tell me why.

And heterosexuality does not make a male prone to sexual attraction and molestation of underage girls.

Yet we have all these laws to protect girls from molestation! If all men were homosexual, would there be sexual abuse of girls? It is absurd to say that heterosexuality does not make a male prone to sexual attraction.

By the same vein, homosexuality does not make a male prone to sexual attraction and molestation of underage boys.

No sexual attraction works on an age system.

And children are at sexual development across the range from baby-like to adult-like. A man is simply attracted to whom he is attracted to. We should have similar laws for homosexual attraction that we have for heterosexual attraction.

Pedophiles are no different from heterosexuals?

Not in their sexual desire. Both homosexual and heterosexual pedophiles are the same when it comes to sexual desire.

Homosexuals do not have foreign minds when it comes to sex. They are just like heterosexuals. One just has to know people.

I agree.

Sexuality is in the mind. If you agree that Homosexuals do not have foreign minds when it comes to sex, that they are just like heterosexuals, then why aren't the rules governing heterosexual men with young girls, applicable to homosexual men with young boys?

We're not talking about PC cancel culture.

I was.

I assure you, that adult males being attracted to children is an aberration, not the norm.

It depends on the age of the child. From the many, many, movies we have where underaged girls are for titillation, to the jungle of porn sites with youth as their theme, male heterosexual attraction to 15 to 18 year old females is NOT an aberration.

But that is beside the point. We don't know which males suffer this aberration, so we have laws. Why should it be any different for homosexuals?

If you are an adult and find yourself sexually attracted to children, ethang, I encourage you to seek out counselling and help.

Right Draft. The rules are for me. You can't answer my questions but you can smear me with a petty swipe? Do you think men became no go in girls locker rooms only after I was born?

Or do you feel you're losing so bad you think smarmily calling me pedophile will help your argument?

Because those people exist? I'm not suggesting pedophiles don't exist, ethang.

Ok. Do homosexual pedophiles exist? Yes. Then why not have the same rules prohibiting them from boys locker rooms?

They apply to all men in the BSA.

What is "they" draft? The rules in the BSA as they are now do not address sexual attraction. And that is why these pedophiles are able to so freely abuse vulnerable children. The laws need to be reciprocal based on sexual attraction.

Are you attracted to children, ethang?

Not sexually, but I do find them adorable.

Are you gay Draft?

Why should that be any different for homosexual males?

It isn't.

It is. Hetero men are not allowed certain interactions with children of the gender fitting their sexual attraction. Homo men have no such restriction. And homosexual abuse of boys runs rampant.

I think the abuse took place before the measures were put in to stop it.

To stop what Draft? What is "it"? Homosexual abuse.

Why was it a problem in the BSA Draft?

...your baseless fear mongering about the current state of affairs.

Fear mongering is when someone tries to scare people about something that has not occurred, but with what will occur.

Single men are actually not allowed to adopt little girls

Other than the gender of the target of sexual contact, no.

Then there is a connection. The connection is that little boys are the same gender as the target of sexual desire.

Nor is any one-on-one contact permitted between adults and scouts.

So are the hundreds of abuse claims false?

since the admission of homosexuals happened 7 years ago, let's revisit the subject in 23 years and see how things have panned out.

We know now. It was homosexuals who molested those boys, from 100 years ago to today. Admitting homosexuals will only accelerate the frequency of abuse cases.

After all, we wouldn't want to jump to conclusions and denigrate an entire class of people because of one's own personal biases, would we?

You think its "denigrating" to observe that homosexuals are attracted to males? Who do you think are sexually molesting boys? Heterosexual men?

Can you enlighten me as to how you can claim to know so well the minds of homosexuals with respect to pedophilia?

Homosexuals do not have foreign minds when it comes to sex. They are just like heterosexuals. One just has to know people.

It strains your imagination why pedophiles would make it easier for them to abuse the objects of their desire? Have you met any pedophiles, Draft?

Not to my knowledge. Have you?

Yes I have. That is how I know they are no different from heterosexuals.

/s

You sarcasm missed the point. PC cancel culture is rampant in our society.

And yet you don't seem concerned about daughters in families with heterosexual male figures. Why not? 

...history has shown us that the effect of an adult female, (the wife) mitigates the risk of a sexually aggressive male toward the female child.

Read, don't skim. This is exactly why I am also against single men being able to adopt little girls.

If your logic is to be followed, daughters should be removed from those families and placed with single mothers or the homosexual males themselves.

My "logic" would seem that way to you only if you don't know what a "wife" is.

Because men are sexually aggressive, and generally attracted to females.

Of an appropriate age.

Untrue. Men generally approach females of a legally appropriate age, but are attracted to many different ages of females. So to be safe, we have restrictions in place.

Because sexual attraction toward a gender does not imply pedophilia attraction toward that gender.

Yet men are restricted from the locker rooms of inappropriately aged females. Why?

I'm saying that the same restrictions should apply to homosexual men.

Or are you saying that heterosexual men are naturally sexually attractive and aggressive towards ALL females, regardless of age?

Other than it being female, we don't know what else male heterosexuals are attracted to, so for safety's sake, we have restrictions in place, because we do know that men are attracted to females. A 17 year old can look like a 23 year old. Some men cannot resist the desire and it overcomes their hibitions.

Why should that be any different for homosexual males?

[Citation needed]

First, please tell me why single men are not permitted to adopt females. I am not going to be bogged down with citation requests for obviously evident things.

ALL adult leaders have restrictions to ALL children in the Scouts.

And yet we have hundreds of abuse cases! Reality should matter to you more than PC dogma. Or do you think the homosexual abuse took place in the presence of other adults?

Reasons that exist only in your head.

Single men are actually not allowed to adopt little girls, so the reason cannot exist only in my head.

When I asked you the reason why single men are not allowed to adopt girls, you did not answer. What reason is there for that Draft, that isn't just "in my head"?

Any link between the current situation with the BSA and the acceptance of homosexual members and leaders is tenuous, if not entirely imagined.

This is the PC talking point, but common sense contradicts it. There is no connection between men sexually abusing little boys, and men who are sexually attracted to other men?

Do you know why men are not allowed in girls locker rooms?

About 90% of the abuse claims are from over 30 years ago...

So far.

...whereas homosexual members and leaders were permitted in scouts in 2013 and 2015, respectively.

Homosexuals have always been members, they just got in under pretense before the change. But by officially permitting homosexuals, they validated pedophilia in the minds of the homosexuals in, and attracted to, the organization.

They were aware of the problem, but still voted to let homosexuals become troop leaders.

Most likely because there is no link between homosexuality and pedophilia/child abuse.

Even more likely is that the dominant PC culture told them there was no connection, and they believed it.

It strains the imagination to consider how (or why) "a few" pedophiles could contrive to do this.

It strains your imagination why pedophiles would make it easier for them to abuse the objects of their desire? Have you met any pedophiles, Draft?

An overwhelming majority of Chartered Organizations are religious institutions.

All of them under PC cancel culture pressure to normalize homosexuality and thereby lose any reason not to allow them in as leaders.

I'm sure there are incidents of this happening already. I'm not sure what the point is. Children get molested in a variety of family structures.

And yet we have structures we will not place kids into. My prediction is that we will find that the rate of abuse of male children with male homosexual couples will outstrip the overall average.

PC apologists will again say it isn't homosexuality, but just pedophilia. But just as the precedent in the catholic church shows, the common denominator in 90% of organizational cases of systematic abuse is homosexuality.

...you don't have to speculate as to their motivations. It's money. Plain and simple money. 

An organization, and individuals within that organization, can have different and multiple motivations.

This is baseless fear mongering, nothing more.

So the PC police would have us believe. But clear thinking is all it takes.

Why are male doctors not allowed to examine females without a female nurse present? Why are male coaches not allowed in female student locker rooms? Why are single men not allowed to adopt female children?

Because men are sexually aggressive, and generally attracted to females.

These rules though unequal for men, help mitigate the risks of abuse of females. Even men do not complain about them.

Why would anyone think the male sex drive is different or safer if the male is homosexual?

A single man is refused adoption because history has shown us that the effect of an adult female, (the wife) mitigates the risk of a sexually aggressive male toward the female child. That mitigating dynamic is lost in a homosexual couple who adopts a male child.

Just look at the sheer number of cases in the Catholic church! We do not see the same rate of abuse in heterosexual cases  because we wisely do not allow men such access to female children.

Homosexual men should have similar restrictions on access to male children for the same reasons.

It is no more fear mongering to raise  caution about two men adopting a little boy, than it is to raise caution about a single man adopting a little girl.

Neither case is advisable, and for the same reasons.

The Boy Scouts of America has filed for bankruptcy. It cannot sustain the hundreds of claims of homosexual pedophilia against it.

Remember a few years ago the BSA decided it would allow homosexuals to be Troop leaders? Coincidence?

Did you know, the BSA has been tracking pedophiles within its ranks for about 100 years? They were aware of the problem, but still voted to let homosexuals become troop leaders.

Could a few pedophiles have infiltrated the governing body of the BSA and then, from the inside, forced the organization to accept gay troop leaders?

I just listened to the news report, and there was no mention of homosexuality. Because it isn't PC to call this what it is. It's pedophilia, they say, not homosexuality. Right.

What's next? Here is my prediction. In a few years, we will start hearing of male kids adopted into gay marriage families, who were molested.

Adopt a little boy, and then abuse him and his pals who come over for stay overs. Idiot parents, wanting to appear politically correct, allowed their underaged male kids to sleep over at homosexual couple's house.