ethang5

And while he is at it he would do well to unclick:

 * the offensiveness format

 * the lying format

 * the deceitfulness format

 * the ultimate reality format

 * the truth format

 * the stupidity format

 * the bigotry format

 * the hatred format

That you were "touched" is a thing not hard to guess looking at your posts.

It was a bad thing Deb, but you've got to move on. Neither God or Religion did that to you. And whatever group he was in matters very little.

It was not your fault, and you can be happy again. Don't gave in to the darkness.

Whether it's weird or not, who cares.

The fact is that anal-retentive snothead keeps on being highly abusive and bigoted...

..and you are trying to shoot the messenger

...for exposing such a repulsive example of humanity at its worst.

Yep sure, I'll gladly send the money. Just message me the details and I will arrange straight away.

Sure as Hell, God won't.

...dumb suffering wretches of children slowly dying.

I think that bastard Willows has a lot to answer for...

Self loathing?

And if he's a "bastard", why are you channelling "the bastard"?

My goodness. In a whole year you've thought of no new topics? Not even one?

Yeah, by one helluva margin actually.

I can only assume a willful blindness on your part.

Exposing the bigotry, hatred and ugly, unjustified and unqualified accusations made by others is hardly hate speech, is it?

Yes, you are extremely bigoted and:

Yes, you are extremely hateful.

Author: Willows , 1 year ago

But not gender. It restricts why you can enter a restroom, not who.

"Peeping Tom" implies purient intent.

It does not.

I call it unconstitutional because it violated the constitution. 

sexual interest or arousal

There are other kinds of abuse than sexual.

Then take it up with your local senator

All prior to the open admission of homosexual leaders

I didn't say "sexual" risk. I said "risk."

That is not what I meant to say, no.

Homosexuals are no more an inherent risk to boy than heterosexuals are.

They have no desire to comply with them.

They were, in fact barred.

They were able to join because they did not reveal their sexual orientation.

Given the number of cases from the time when homosexuals were barred from being leaders, the issue is most certainly not moot.

How do you propose to do that?

Which does not mean a person with a given sexuality is prone to sexual abuse.

Men have been traditionally restricted from women because of a lot of outmoded social concepts about gender roles.

You can count on me to refrain from calling you a pedophile 

Exhaustive personal field studies.

Not according to anything you've cited.

According to the law, yes.

[Citation Needed]

Said law applied to heterosexuals as well. Two heterosexual men could not get married under that law.

Because the existing law was unconstitutional and unconstitutional laws should be removed.

I do not want any law to take into the account of the sexual orientation of the person.

There are no laws at all for anyone based on sexual attraction.

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.

Clearly false because the law did apply to both equally and there was still the outcry.

We do not.

open admission of homosexuals will necessarily result in open admission of homosexual pedophiles and thereby increase the risk to Youths.

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.

Frankly, the idea that a homosexual person is an inherent risk simply because of their homosexuality is offensive.

No scoutmaster I know is a sex abuser and I'm an Eagle Scout.; been in scouting since 4th grade.

Some scout masters you know may be abusers. They tend to hide the fact that they are abusers.

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.

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.

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.

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.

No, quite obviously the "it" means "prone to attraction and molestation of underaged girls."

Stop feigning ignorance about 3rd grade grammar.

I left the 3rd grade years ago. Perhaps if you got your grammar to a higher level?

What are you citing here? What part of the conversation does this have to do with? How does it involve homosexuality?

The law you sited requires "purient intent." It is not a blanket ban on men in women's locker's/restrooms.

Then do you retract the claim?

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

This requires discrimination based on sexuality.

Otherwise you have to concede that the law currently does apply to homosexuals in the same way it applies to heterosexuals.

What you are actually discussing above is human nature in all it's varied forms.

Thank you. My point is not to denigrate homosexuals, but to show we all, homo and hetero, have the same human nature.

Being homosexual is not a virtue, neither is being heterosexual. Looking at it honestly and realistically like this makes  one immune to the PC pressure to treat homosexuality as if it endows angelic qualities.

If we expect some heterosexual men to abuse children of the gender to whom they are sexually attracted, why would it be different for homosexual men?

And if we place restrictions on those heterosexual men based on the risk of the  unknown few who will attempt to abuse 

That is to say, sexually repressed males. 

You may be able to quote comments out of context to make them fit into your wonton view...

Oh Sal! I'm going to cite the whole thread in its entirety so there will be no mistaking the context.

You are a racist and a bigot, you sided with hari, a virulent racist who was banned for his racism. Never thought your racist comments would come back to haunt you did you?

Your compulsion is going to cost you.

You have to admit though that Willows really hammers home reality like it really is.

The stupid twit should know though that no matter how many times he peddles that line it doesn't matter anyway since the people he aims it at are too deluded to even know that they are deluded.

Yes, that is a very informative thread you posted there Willows; I really appreciate your insight and intelligent, balanced reasoning. 

Classic dodger.

Sarcasm and abuse is the limit of their intellectual reasoning.

I am not able to find a single lawsuit or accusation of sex abuse dated after 2015 (When the BSA permitted troop leaders)

I'm citing mainstream thinking- the Journal of Pediatrics and the FBI, which Ethan dismisses as "PC nonsense"

I'd be willing to create a debate on this topic:  "THBT: The 2020 BANKRUPTCY FILING by the BOY SCOUTS of AMERICA was CAUSED by DECLINING MEMBERSHIP, SEX ABUSE COVER-UPS and the WITHDRAWAL of the MORMON CHURCH, NOT the 2015 ADMISSION of GAY SCOUT LEADERS"

This is not as surprising when one honestly assesses the amount of male on male sex that actually takes place when women aren't available.

I'm not saying that gay men aren't subject to the same motivations and tendencies as straight men.

Thinking Ethang should go back to creating brain teasers and leave the Chick tract proposals to the experts.

Chick tracts? Neither of us have mentioned religion.

If these were books instead of online digital debates, you'd be out of matches eh?

"Conservatives think liberals are wrong, liberals think conservatives are evil."

Rape is an expression of violence, not attraction.  The victims are selected according to availability and vulnerability, not attraction.

This is the PC nonsense that got the BSA into trouble in the first place. The perpetrators have sex with child, because the find the male child sexually attractive.

The PC narrative is struggling to absolve homosexuality from the stigma of pedophilia. But that requires a dismissal of reality.

All regressed offenders, whether their victims were male or female children, were heterosexual in their adult orientation.

Until they come out of the closet, all adult males appear heterosexual in their  orientation.

Just going by the numbers, a boy scout leader who identifies as gay is statistically far less likely to be a sex abuse than a boy scout leader who identifies as straight.

The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive

Let's also note that the BSA is not filing for bankruptcy because lawsuit payouts drained their coffers.  Rather, the BSA is filing for bankruptcy so that it does not have to pay out judgements against them.

I am not able to find a single lawsuit or accusation of sex abuse dated after 2015 (When the BSA permitted troop leaders).

So at least 140 lawsuits are on hold and new law suits cannot be filed.

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

Certainly.

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

The exact causes of pedophilia are unknown.

It's possible, sure.

While you are correct that the biology of sexual attraction operates without knowledge of the age involve,...

But this conversation is hardly about 19 year olds who are sexually attracted to 17 year and 11 month olds.

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

If you think it's my comments that insinuate you are pedophile, then you haven't been reading the conversation correctly.

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

We do.

Something usually at the discretion of the facility at hand,

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

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.

I made no comment as to why we have the rules.

I am not gay because I am not sexual attracted to men.

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

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.

Do you?

To say that homosexual abuse of boys is rampant, would require you to know the rate.

Agreed.

For male-to-male abuse, yes.

But the mere fact that a person is a homosexual does not make them a likely pedophile or molester.

Please cite a single law of this type.

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

The world's most unpopular poster.