Some plaintiff attorney is forcing them to publish a list of thousands of leaders who sexually abused boys since 1965.

1) If they ban gay men from joining to avoid future abuse, they're criticized (and sued).

2) If they allow gay men to join and inevitably there are sexual abuses, they're criticized (and sued).

There is no way for them to please the general public. I was a Cub Scout for just one year and I didn't enjoy it, so I have no dog in this hunt. But I find this situation very sad. It's a good organization.

Too true.

Yup, it they can just keep out those darn gays everything will be hunky-dory.

Oh wait, they already ban gays. Been approved by the Supreme Court and everything. And yet thousands of scout leaders have sexually molested their charges. Maybe the gays aren't the problem.

Quote:Keith Early, joined the group at 12, recruited by an assistant Scoutmaster who was a married firefighter with three children and led Scout meetings in a church in Washington state.

Early, now 18, was sexually abused by the Scout leader

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/17/justice/bo...?hpt=hp_c3

(10-18-2012 07:56 AM)jh Wrote:  Yup, it they can just keep out those darn gays everything will be hunky-dory.

Oh wait, they already ban gays. Been approved by the Supreme Court and everything. And yet thousands of scout leaders have sexually molested their charges. Maybe the gays aren't the problem.

You seem to have trouble with even the most basic logic.

You just wrote "Gays are a problem for the Boy Scounts, but maybe gays aren't the problem."

(10-18-2012 07:56 AM)jh Wrote:  Yup, it they can just keep out those darn gays everything will be hunky-dory.

Oh wait, they already ban gays. Been approved by the Supreme Court and everything. And yet thousands of scout leaders have sexually molested their charges. Maybe the gays aren't the problem.

the scouts wants to ban any adult male who is sexually attracted to other males
i think that makes sense

but even if you don't agree with that, i hope you still agree that the law shouldn't forbid the scouts from trying to do that

Um, if a man molests boys...

Jeez, lets pretend it isn't what it is.

There aren't any gays in the priesthood either.

(10-18-2012 08:04 AM)Cardiff Wrote:  the scouts wants to ban any adult male who is sexually attracted to other males
i think that makes sense
but even if you don't agree with that, i hope you still agree that the law shouldn't forbid the scouts from trying to do that

I don't think that makes sense. I'm pretty sure that there is no evidence that men who identify as homosexual molest boys at a higher rate than those that identify as heterosexual. I'm also pretty sure the vast majority of the problems in the scouts came from leaders who appeared to be heterosexual, like the firefighter with a wife and three kids, and I seriously doubt that their background check could ever identify something like that.

But the scouts are a private organization. If they want to require straight leaders they are free to do so (and as I noted, the Supreme Court has confirmed this right). More importantly, it looks like they've already tried to implement the kind of structural changes (two adults at every function, etc.) that will be more effective in avoiding problems in the future.

(10-18-2012 07:56 AM)jh Wrote:  Yup, it they can just keep out those darn gays everything will be hunky-dory.

Oh wait, they already ban gays. Been approved by the Supreme Court and everything. And yet thousands of scout leaders have sexually molested their charges. Maybe the gays aren't the problem.

Cops ban drunk driving but it still happens... And a man molesting a boy is, by definition, a homosexual act...

(10-18-2012 08:55 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 08:04 AM)Cardiff Wrote:  the scouts wants to ban any adult male who is sexually attracted to other males
i think that makes sense
but even if you don't agree with that, i hope you still agree that the law shouldn't forbid the scouts from trying to do that

I don't think that makes sense. I'm pretty sure that there is no evidence that men who identify as homosexual molest boys at a higher rate than those that identify as heterosexual.

I'm pretty sure there is, but it's also been categorized away within the research b/c facts don't fit the agenda.

Quote: I'm also pretty sure the vast majority of the problems in the scouts came from leaders who appeared to be heterosexual, like the firefighter with a wife and three kids

Irrelevant.

(10-18-2012 08:55 AM)jh Wrote:  I don't think that makes sense. I'm pretty sure that there is no evidence that men who identify as homosexual molest boys at a higher rate than those that identify as heterosexual.

Other than the fact one must be a man who is sexually attracted to other male in order to even consider that. That would, by definition make him homo or bi sexual.

Quote:I'm also pretty sure the vast majority of the problems in the scouts came from leaders who appeared to be heterosexual, like the firefighter with a wife and three kids, and I seriously doubt that their background check could ever identify something like that.

So they should not try?

(10-18-2012 08:04 AM)Cardiff Wrote:  the scouts wants to ban any adult male who is sexually attracted to other males
i think that makes sense

I do, too. If there's nothing wrong with gays being scout leaders then why don't we have straight men leading girl scouts?

(10-18-2012 09:21 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 08:55 AM)jh Wrote:  I don't think that makes sense. I'm pretty sure that there is no evidence that men who identify as homosexual molest boys at a higher rate than those that identify as heterosexual.

Other than the fact one must be a man who is sexually attracted to other male in order to even consider that. That would, by definition make him **** or bi sexual.

Quote:I'm also pretty sure the vast majority of the problems in the scouts came from leaders who appeared to be heterosexual, like the firefighter with a wife and three kids, and I seriously doubt that their background check could ever identify something like that.

So they should not try?

Should not try what? To keep out child molesters? Absolutely they should. And if there was a demonstrated link between adult sexual preferences and child molestation the ban would make sense (as a private organization other reasons are allowable as well).

So molesting one boy makes a man a homosexual but fathering three kids doesn't make him a heterosexual. I guess gay really is the new black. At least you recognize that bi-sexual would be an option, but there are more things out there than just gay, straight, and bi.

(10-18-2012 09:35 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 09:21 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 08:55 AM)jh Wrote:  I don't think that makes sense. I'm pretty sure that there is no evidence that men who identify as homosexual molest boys at a higher rate than those that identify as heterosexual.

Other than the fact one must be a man who is sexually attracted to other male in order to even consider that. That would, by definition make him **** or bi sexual.

Quote:I'm also pretty sure the vast majority of the problems in the scouts came from leaders who appeared to be heterosexual, like the firefighter with a wife and three kids, and I seriously doubt that their background check could ever identify something like that.

So they should not try?

Should not try what? To keep out child molesters? Absolutely they should. And if there was a demonstrated link between adult sexual preferences and child molestation the ban would make sense

That's progress.

(10-18-2012 09:35 AM)jh Wrote:  Should not try what? To keep out child molesters? Absolutely they should. And if there was a demonstrated link between adult sexual preferences and child molestation the ban would make sense (as a private organization other reasons are allowable as well).

I think you're glossing over one important fact here. I think there is a demonstrated link between sexual preference and the KIND of child they molest. My understanding is that straight guys are more likely to molest girls and gay guys are more likely to molest boys. And last I checked, the boy scouts had lots of boys and very few girls. Obviously, you do make a good point about the fact that some portion of those otherwise straight-appearing guys could have a wife and kids and still have same-sex cravings, and I would not know how the scouts would go about detecting that.

If you have different data on point, feel free to share.

(10-18-2012 07:15 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Some plaintiff attorney is forcing them to publish a list of thousands of leaders who sexually abused boys since 1965.

1) If they ban gay men from joining to avoid future abuse, they're criticized (and sued).

2) If they allow gay men to join and inevitably there are sexual abuses, they're criticized (and sued).

There is no way for them to please the general public. I was a Cub Scout for just one year and I didn't enjoy it, so I have no dog in this hunt. But I find this situation very sad. It's a good organization.

Uh, there is no greater likelihood of sexual abuse by Gay men than by straight ones.

Why hasn't the Big Brother/Big Sister groups been sued for having Gay men/women in their organization? Oh yea, that's right, because abuse doesn't go up when you allow openly Gay men into the organization.

I think the choices that BSA has are as follows:

1) Continue to run the organization as defacto subsidiaries of the Mormon Church and the Southern Baptist Convention. Continue to ban Gays and people without religion. Lose all taxpayer funding. Watch the organization fall away to nothing on the coasts.

2) Allow Gays and those without religion to serve and participate. Risk alienating the Mormons.

-----------------------------------------

If the BSA was really interested in stopping abuse they'd simply say...adults can participate in BSA events, so long as they have a child participating in BSA. Once the child ages out, so does the parents direct involvement with the kids.

(10-18-2012 09:45 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Uh, there is no greater likelihood of sexual abuse by Gay men than by straight ones.

Are you stating that when the abused victims are limited to boys, there is still no greater likelihood of abuse by gay men than straight men? If so, source?

Considering that Lord Baden-Powell was apparently himself gay, the Boy Scouts are in something of an awkward position here.

(10-18-2012 09:35 AM)jh Wrote:  Should not try what? To keep out child molesters? Absolutely they should. And if there was a demonstrated link between adult sexual preferences and child molestation the ban would make sense (as a private organization other reasons are allowable as well).

If one commits a homosexual act they are either homo or bi sexual... That's pretty simple. No reason to try and muddy it up here. Noboady is saying all or most Gays are also phedophiles. But all men who molest little boys have a homosexual nature.

All elephants are grey but not all gray things re elephants.

(10-18-2012 09:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 09:35 AM)jh Wrote:  Should not try what? To keep out child molesters? Absolutely they should. And if there was a demonstrated link between adult sexual preferences and child molestation the ban would make sense (as a private organization other reasons are allowable as well).

I think you're glossing over one important fact here. I think there is a demonstrated link between sexual preference and the KIND of child they molest. My understanding is that straight guys are more likely to molest girls and gay guys are more likely to molest boys. And last I checked, the boy scouts had lots of boys and very few girls. Obviously, you do make a good point about the fact that some portion of those otherwise straight-appearing guys could have a wife and kids and still have same-sex cravings, and I would not know how the scouts would go about detecting that.

If you have different data on point, feel free to share.

And you touch on the larger point about child molestation and homosexuality. Its not OPENLY GAY men who are doing this, its largely outwardly straight (e.g., priests, married to women men, etc.) men that you see doing this. I think that banning openly Gay persons is not the answer. Because they aren't the problem.

(10-18-2012 09:48 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And you touch on the larger point about child molestation and homosexuality. Its not OPENLY GAY men who are doing this, its largely outwardly straight (e.g., priests, married to women men, etc.) men that you see doing this. I think that banning openly Gay persons is not the answer. Because they aren't the problem.

But OPENLY gay men aren't doing it because they aren't getting into positions where doing it is possible. Who knows what would happen if they were getting into position to do so?

Alex Rodriguez has struck out 12 times in this post-season. I've struck out zero times in this post-season. That does not mean that I'm a better hitter than Alex Rodriguez.

I don't think it should matter if a scoutmaster is gay. It should only matter if he is a molester.

Call me old fashioned, but this would end quickly if they just beat the hell of the ones they catch.

There are some simple reasons why we have more of this crap now than we used to have.