Here is an interesting article http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/report-boy-scout-documents-reveal-repeat-child-abuse-by-sexual-predators/2012/08/05/2011b2e4-df29-11e1-8d48-2b1243f34c85_story.html . Before discussing it at all, let me make clear that it can be extremely difficult to assess accusations of molestation. We live in a country that professes to believe that persons are innocent until proven to be guilty. However, many seem to believe that child molestation may be an exception to that maxim. After all, we have an obligation to protect children from these individuals. I was indirectly involved in evaluating an accusation of a physician accused of molesting children. He was a senior and highly respected physician specializing in urology. A 15 year old accused him of having molested him during examination. The boy was in trouble at school and with local police for multiple episodes of misconduct so was not considered a reliable witness. The physician, as I have said was highly respected; plus, urology involves touching and examining the genitals of patients so can be misinterpreted as fondling. In any event, after review, the physician was absolved of any misconduct. Several years later, he was arrested for soliciting, fondling, and molesting young boys.
The Boy Scouts have been adamant in prohibiting gay and lesbian persons from leadership positions.
My question at this juncture is “Would it be safer for boys were more of the boy scout leaders gay?” After all, gays are no more likely to be pedophiles than straights and would seem to have more to lose if discovered to have molested children (easier trial and harsher sentencing seem likely).
I realize that some will make a religious analysis of this but ask that we not get into religion this time. There is little evidence that being religious makes one either more or less likely to molest children. Additionally, the boy scouts are a private organization and, as such, are fully entitled to make their own decisions on membership and leadership. Like several other youth organizations (Demolay in my case) there are faults and goods to be found in these organizations. The boy scouts have been instrumental in leading numerous young men to mature and productive adult status (the girl scouts also for that matter). I have no bone to pick with them or their principles. My question is only in regard to whether it might be time for the organization to reconsider its decision on this issue.
PS, I was incredibly proud to assist my grandson in achieving Eagle Scout status.
I’m not really surprised. I was involved in Scouting when my son was in during the 80s and 90s. They seemed to be more concerned that your car was properly registered and you were licensed and insured if you were driving kids to an event, and incurious why some single, childless, middle aged guy who lived in his mother’s basement wanted to be a scout leader.
“After all, gays are no more likely to be pedophiles than straights. . .” (ETH)
.
.
WHAT the F*ck are you here doing Ed?!
You say that, as you post about yet another a gay child-sexual predator scandal! As the late great (and pretty gay) Cecille B DeMille would say, “You’re NOT helping the cause here any, Ed!”
You ARE aware of course that EVERY CASE of the alleged “Boy Scouts sexual abuse,” like that of the “Catholic Church’s sexual abuse scandals” revolved around GAY (homosexual) sexual predators.
A male priest who engages in sex with a male child is a gay pedophile.
That’s not too hard to grasp for you, is it?
Likewise, a male Boy Scout troop leader who engages in sex with a male child is also. . .(come on, shout it out, if you know the answer). . .that’s right – a GAY pedophile.
There has NEVER been a case of a “straight man” engaging in sex with a male child.
You know WHY?
BECAUSE as soon as a male inserts penis into an unwilling arse instead of an unwilling quim (as the Brits are wont to say), he’s presto-chango – a “homosexual predator.” It matters NOT that that male adult may never have engaged in homosexuality before (and got caught…of course), he sure engaged the hell out of it in THAT case! AND that’s quite enough to make him a “gay child-sexual predator.”
See, heterosexual male predators tend to (actually EXCLUSIVELY) have female victims, which is why THEY’RE correctly called “heterosexual child predators!
I hope I’m not going too fast for you, here. If I am, feel free to inquire over any remaining confusion you might have on this issue. I’ll do my very best to help.
IF you really want to make the case for what you’ve made your thesis, it pays to use actual examples of “heterosexual child predators!” You generally DON’T want to use an example of homosexual child predators to prove the case that “gays are no more or less likely than anyone else to be child sexual predators,” as such examples serve to undermine that thesis.
You know the phrase, “With friends like you, we don’t need enemies. . .” well, YES, with you doing this sort of thing ALL the time (I might add), you’re actually kicking the “liberal” cause right in the proverbial balls.
Thankfully, the “liberal” cause has no balls.
I will attempt to keep to single topics. Is it your position that all gays are pedophiles? I am fully aware that all male on male pedophilia is homosexual in nature. Introductory logic generally provides information that even if every B is an A, that does not prove that every A is a B. That is to say that while an adult male who rapes a male child is a homosexual pedophile, not all adult male homosexuals are necessarily pedophiles. I am aware that many of the far right believe this to be the case but was under the impression that you were not generally in agreement with that group.
On a slightly different tack, why do you continually insist on labeling me a liberal? Is it simply your need to insult others who do not accept your words as gospel? I tend to agree with liberals on a number of subjects but disagree with them in at least as man areas.
“Is it your position that all gays are pedophiles?” (ETH)
.
.
OK, how dumb are you, really? That’s (sadly) a very serious question.
I never said, nor implied that goofy. I actually implied the reverse – that THAT thesis is accurate, BUT dolts like you feed into the worst stereotypes by continually bringing up these man-on-boy gay sexual predator scandals.
I merely noted that YOU foolishly used an example of a gay-child-predator scandal (this Boy Scouts scandal is all about man-on-boy sex). . .and as you belatedly agreed, ALL man-on-boy sex is “steeped in gayness.
You may very well be unaware of this, but using a homosexual child-sex scandal to highlight how “gays aren’t any more likely to be child molesters,” tends to undermine that thesis. When I saw this I noted that ONLY a complete idiot would use a homosexual child sex scandal to “defend” homosexuals against the unproven charge that “pedophiles tend to be disproportionately gay.”
And it’s TRUE, that ONLY a complete idiot, OR someone looking to smear and slime gay men by highlighting the Boy Scout man-boy sex scandal, which is very much like that of the Catholic Church’s man-boy sex scandal, thus linking gay men to such scandals!
So, which one are you? An anti-gay slimer or a complete idiot?
.
.
.
As to WHY I consider you a “liberal”:
Let’s see; your support for segregated standards (preferences and disparate impact rulings), rushing to excuse a mass murderer with a (seemingly baseless) diagnosis (from afar) of schizophrenia, and HERE apparently being so eager to slime the Boy Scouts, that you inadvertently used a homosexual child-predator scandal to “defend” gays!
I believe this last one was actually MALICIOUS on your part and NOT due to stupidity, or as they say, “Stupid like a fox.” You KNEW exactly what you were doing – linking gay men to yet ANOTHER pedophile scandal, yeah right.
Those are ALL reliably “liberal,” not to mention whacky positions. . .of course, “liberal” and whacky seem to go together rather seamlessly, don’t they?
I see that we can agree on one thing. You are obviously a far right conservative in the Palin camp. As such, I am wasting my time attempting to engage in meaningful conversation. Talking to broken walls is not unlike putting lipstick on a pig.
Hey! I’m NOT the one who slimed homosexuals here! YOU were.
That YOU would use a homosexual child-sex scandal to “defend” gays from charges of being linked to pedophilia is both DUMB and DISGUSTING.
Again, get some sleep, you started out by making a fool of yourself and have only made things worse with every subsequent post.
There’s absolutely NO DOUBT in my mind that this post of yours is absolutely MALICIOUS toward gays. It appears as though YOU went out of your way to highlight yet ANOTHER homosexual (man-on-boy) child sex scandal to link gays to pedophilia. I hope it’s due to a lack of sleep on your part, because I’m really outraged that you’d seemingly deliberately and maliciously slime the homosexual community like this.
Seriously, I really thought better of you. At least I thought you were a decent enough fellow. THIS is just plain wrong.
Please get some sleep, then reconsider this post in the light of day and maybe delete it, OR at least DON’T highlight yet ANOTHER homosexual child sex scandal as so-called “evidence” that gays aren’t more likely to be pedophiles. . .THAT really DOES come off as absolutely malicious.
It’s a new day and I’ve considered your age (I believe you posted somewhere that you were like 90!) and come around to believing that you DIDN’T really mean to deliberately slime gays.
I reacted as though you were a younger guy snarkily bringing up yet ANOTHER homosexual child-sex scandal. . .to prove (of course) that “gays are no more likely to be child rapists than anyone else.” I’m pretty sure they didn’t have “snark” back in your day.
But, SURE, what better way to prove that than by pointing to yet ANOTHER widespread homosexual (man-on-boy) child sex scandal?!
I’m doing it again (feeling outrage that’s obviously misplaced because of your age), ANYWAY, I’m sure you didn’t mean to slime gays, you just did so inadvertently.
I WILL note however, that I was subsequently contacted by an associate of mine from the past (no not “THAT” past, my actual College past) named “Jimmy Eyes” (because of the thick, black horn-rimmed glasses he always wears). . .ANYWAY, Jimmy teaches Statistical Analysis at Dartmouth now and he saw this exchange and noted to me in an email that I (that’s ME) “may be” wrong in my assumptions that “gays were NOT over-represented among pedophiles.” I’ve long held that view, BUT Jimmy noted that, “While homosexuals are generally accepted to comprise between 2% and 5% of the population (dependent upon estimates), ANYTHING above their actual percentage of the population, in the realm of pedophile cases, would amount to an over-representation of that group in that regard. You (he’s referring to ME, there, Ed) have often said, “It’s unlikely that homosexuals are involved in more than 50% of the pedophile cases.” I’ve read much the same thing, as accurate estimates of such things are difficult to find, BUT even if homosexuals are involved in even just 20% of the pedophile cases, and admittedly they were the primaries in the largest such case (the Catholic Church scandals) even THAT would represent a 10-fold over-representation in that regard! In short, the statistics do not bear you (that’s ME again, Ed) out. This probably deserves further study.”
Now THAT’S interesting. I’d never really thought about it like that before. I guess I owe that exchange, in some measure, to YOU Ed. I let my outrage over what I (now think wrongly) was, in my view, you sliming gays by bringing attention to yet another homosexual child sex scandal, and yet what’s come out of it has been a direct challenge to the orthodoxy that I (and possibly) you claim to hold to – to wit that “gays are no more likely to be pedophiles than straights.”
I will remain in touch with Jimmy and I’ll run those numbers back, forth and sideways – I’m an actual MATHEMAGICIAN – Pythagoras was the first, followed by Newton and. . .(godammit! I’m doing it again! OK, I’ll say it (about myself). . .”Whatta DICK!”), STILL, I will run the numbers (I am pretty good at math…and I’m NOT a middle aged, frumpy British woman) and see where the numbers actually lead. To be honest, it DOES appear as though I (like most others) was guilty of having looked at the issue as though homosexuals represented 50% of the population.
Stay tuned, or in your case, just keep breathing and I’ll get back to you.