Boy Scouts Murdered

Author: ethang5
Homosexuals
children
Crime

Posts

Total: 47
Topic's author
#1
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
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.

And even after it becomes apparent that there are hundreds of cases of abuse, the lemming PC parents will refuse to admit it was homosexuality, and will pretend it was just pedophilia.

Most conservatives would die before letting their underaged son sleep over at the house of a homosexual couple. They are bigoted! You scream. Perhaps, but think of how much money they will save on not having to pay for therapy for their untraumatized kids.
#2
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
Man, got me on the click-bait title.

The Boy Scouts of America has filed for bankruptcy. It cannot sustain the hundreds of claims of homosexual pedophilia against it.
Bankruptcy does not mean the end of an organization. And this only affects the organization at a national level. Due to how the organization is structured, local councils may or may not be affected.

Remember a few years ago the BSA decided it would allow homosexuals to be Troop leaders? Coincidence?
Any link between the current situation with the BSA and the acceptance of homosexual members and leaders is tenuous, if not entirely imagined. About 90% of the abuse claims are from over 30 years ago whereas homosexual members and leaders were permitted in scouts in 2013 and 2015, respectively.

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.
Most likely because there is no link between homosexuality and pedophilia/child abuse. The BSA has been aware of the problem and has taken measures to deal with it, such as implementing a Youth Protection Program and mandatory background checks on all adult 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?
Unlikely. The decision to allow gay adult leaders occurred at several levels of the organization. The results varied from majority to unanimous assent. It strains the imagination to consider how (or why) "a few" pedophiles could contrive to do this.

Missing from the equation is the role of the Chartered Organization. Each Scout Troop must have a chartered organization. That is some organization that sponsors the troop and provides them with a place to meet. An overwhelming majority of Chartered Organizations are religious institutions.

Chartered Organizations' policies take precedence over BSA policies. A Chartered Organization can require that a Troop follow its policies on membership, and implement discriminatory policies with respect to sexuality or even gender.

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.
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.

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.
This is baseless fear mongering, nothing more.
#3
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
Oh I forgot to add, you don't have to speculate as to their motivations. It's money. Plain and simple money. Certainly they suffer from public pressure on moral grounds in terms of discriminatory policies but at the end of the day it's what affects their bottom line. For example the decision to open up membership to women and girls is little more than a bid to double their membership numbers.

Topic's author
#4
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@drafterman
Man, got me on the click-bait title.
You still have pure heart.

Bankruptcy does not mean the end of an organization.
And none of my comments said it did. But widespread realization that the organization is riddled with pedophiles might.

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.
#5
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@ethang5
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?
Other than the gender of the target of sexual contact, no.

Do you know why men are not allowed in girls locker rooms?
And men are not allowed in boys restrooms and bathing areas in the BSA, either. Nor is any one-on-one contact permitted between adults and scouts.


About 90% of the abuse claims are from over 30 years ago...
So far.
Sure, we can argue that there is a delay between the offense and the time it takes to come to public light. So, since the admission of homosexuals happened 7 years ago, let's revisit the subject in 23 years and see how things have panned out. 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?


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


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.
No, mine is more likely.


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?
Not to my knowledge. Have you?


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.
Yes, as we know, all religions are now so extremely tolerant of homosexuality that it is hardly a topic of discussion these days. /s


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.
And yet you don't seem concerned about daughters in families with heterosexual male figures. Why not? If your logic is to be followed, daughters should be removed from those families and placed with single mothers or the homosexual males themselves.


...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.
They can. And not all those motivations carry the same weight. In this case, the overwhelming motivation is profit: keeping the organization financially afloat.


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.
Of an appropriate age.

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?
Because sexual attraction toward a gender does not imply pedophilia attraction toward that gender. Or are you saying that heterosexual men are naturally sexually attractive and aggressive towards ALL females, regardless of age?

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.
[Citation needed]

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

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.
Reasons that exist only in your head.
Topic's author
#6
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@drafterman
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.

And men are not allowed in boys restrooms and bathing areas in the BSA, either.
You dodged the question.

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"?
#7
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
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.
Yes, I said that. Which is tantamount to no connection at all. This no more makes homosexuals predisposed to molesting young boys than it makes heterosexuals predisposed to molesting young girls.


Nor is any one-on-one contact permitted between adults and scouts.
So are the hundreds of abuse claims false?
The claims come from a time before this policy was implemented. The policy was implemented as a response to combat these issues. My point is that the BSA has taken measures to deal with this problem, rather than secretly bolster it, as you imply.


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.
But we can't validate your claim for another 23 years.


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


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

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?
We're talking about homosexuals in general.


Not to my knowledge. Have you?
Yes I have. That is how I know they are no different from heterosexuals.
Pedophiles are no different from heterosexuals?


/s
You sarcasm missed the point. PC cancel culture is rampant in our society.
We're not talking about PC cancel culture.


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.
There are plenty of single fathers who have daughters. You don't seem concerned for them. Do you advocate the state removing the daughters from their families in those cases?


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.
But not generally attracted to underage 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.
I assure you, that adult males being attracted to children is an aberration, not the norm. If you are an adult and find yourself sexually attracted to children, ethang, I encourage you to seek out counselling and help.


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


I'm saying that the same restrictions should apply to homosexual men.
They apply to all men in the BSA.


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.
Are you attracted to children, ethang?

Why should that be any different for homosexual males?
It isn't.


[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.
The claim that single men are not permitted to adopt females is what I'm asking the citation for. It is not "obviously evident."


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?
I think the abuse took place before the measures were put in to stop it. I am mentioning these measures as a rebuttal to your baseless fear mongering about the current state of affairs.


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.
[Citation needed]


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"?
Because I don't believe you that single men are not allowed to adopt girls. This is why I am asking for a citation. It is a loaded question with an unproven premise.
Topic's author
#8
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@drafterman
Yes, I said that.
No. I said it. You responded as if it was untrue, and when I asked you if there was a connection, you answered, "Other than the connection you're claiming, there is none." Nice try.

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??

But we can't validate your claim for another 23 years.
The claim is already validated. Unlike you, I do not allow PC dogma to blind me to actual reality. Boys are being molested right now. They are not being molested by women, or heterosexual men. Some of the cases of abuse are recent.

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.

If heterosexual men were not attracted to girls, we would need no laws prohibiting it, and no social customs making some things taboo.

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.

There are plenty of single fathers who have daughters. You don't seem concerned for them.
Sorry. Shall I give you a list of all my concerns? A single man gets a child by impregnating a woman. If she dies or leaves him with a child, that is acceptable. Even though many single fathers abuse their daughters. But the risks are too great to have single men adopt girls. Reminding me you still have not answered.

Do you advocate the state removing the daughters from their families in those cases?
Only if there is evidence of abuse.

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.

The abuse is happening now. It is real, regardless of what the current PC ziegist is on homosexuality.
#9
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
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?
Because of the minority of people that do pose a threat.


The policy was implemented as a response to combat these issues.
How would allowing homosexuals into leadership positions combat homosexual pedophilic abuse??
That's not the policy I was talking about.



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


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.
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."



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

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.
We do.


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.
I didn't say "homosexuals and heterosexual pedophiles".

I said "pedophiles and heterosexuals."

Homosexuals do not have foreign minds when it comes to sex. They are just like heterosexuals. One just has to know people.
I agree with you. And neither are prone to pedophilia.


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?
They are.


We're not talking about PC cancel culture.
I was.
But I am not. Hence "we" are not. Nothing in this conversation involves cancel culture.


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?
It isn't.


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?
You seem to think that pedophilia comes part and parcel with having sexual attraction at all. I assume you are a heterosexual which you claim makes you prone to sexual attraction to under age girls.

People generally consider their own mind set to be the norm since that is the only mindset we have access to. I'm just letting you know that that mind set is NOT the norm, but there is help for people with that mindset.


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


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.
Your statement was: "I'm saying that the same restrictions should apply to homosexual men."

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

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.

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


Are you attracted to children, ethang?
Not sexually, but I do find them adorable.
Why not, you are heterosexual (presumably) after all?

Are you gay Draft?
I am not.


Why should that be any different for homosexual males?
Nothing is "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.
[Citation needed]


I think the abuse took place before the measures were put in to stop it.
To stop what Draft? What is "it"? Homosexual abuse.
If you clearly understood my sentence, I don't understand your questions.

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.


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

Single men are actually not allowed to adopt little girls
[Citation needed]

Topic's author
#10
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@drafterman
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?

Are you gay Draft?

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.

Any law trying to govern sexual behavior  that doesn't take sexual attraction into account is foolish.

And the results are clear in the BSA (and the Catholic Church) today.
#11
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
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?
Certainly.


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.
The laws have nothing to do with my comment on denigration. It was your implication that homosexuals are somehow prone to pedophilia to the point you equate the two.


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?
The exact causes of pedophilia are unknown.


Do you think non-heterosexual males are ever prone to attraction and molestation of underaged girls?
It's possible, sure.


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


You seem to think that pedophilia comes part and parcel with having sexual attraction at all.
Pedophilia is not possible without sexual attraction.
But merely having sexual attraction does not make you prone to pedophilia.


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?
The idea of a sexual relationship with a woman much younger than me is rather off putting. While you are correct that the biology of sexual attraction operates without knowledge of the age involve, I an thankfully at an age myself where that fuzzy line is solidly well above the age of majority. But this conversation is hardly about 19 year olds who are sexually attracted to 17 year and 11 month olds.


Insinuating I am a pedophile would not make your argument any less incorrect. It would simply mean you are being beaten by a pedophile.
If you think it's my comments that insinuate you are pedophile, then you haven't been reading the conversation correctly.


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.
We do.


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.
Something usually at the discretion of the facility at hand, which is permitted to make their own rules on the matter. The laws on this area are quite rare.


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.
In this context, we are talking about the restrictions within the BSA. Which are the same for all adults regardless of sexuality and apply to all children, regardless of gender.

No adult is permitted one-on-one contact with a child, and there must be gender and age separated bathing and bathroom facilities.

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


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.
I made no comment as to why we have the rules. I am stating a fact. 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.


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?
Because they are not. The falsity of your statement would be the key element of its slanderous nature.


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?
I am not gay because I am not sexual attracted to men. I never said that neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality plays a role in sexual attraction.


Nothing is "different" for homosexual males.
Do heterosexual males have the same access to the underaged targets of their sexual desire as homosexuals do?
In the BSA? Yes. Access to children of either gender is restricted regardless of the gender or sexuality of the adult.


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.
Bathing and restroom facilities must be segregated by age and gender. Either by having separate facilities for each or by reserving times for use of the facilities.

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. The only exception is contact and communication among family members.

All adults must be registered. Registration includes criminal background checks and Youth Protection training.

Youth Protection training must reoccur every two years.

BSA requires adult leaders report to local authorities suspicion of abuse or neglect.

Scouts, as a part of each rank, are required to read and review BSA youth protection policies with their parent or guardian.


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.
Do you? To say that homosexual abuse of boys is rampant, 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.
Agreed.


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


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.
Please cite a single law of this type.

And, while you're at it, a single law that forbids single men from adopting girls.
#12
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@ethang5
Ethang5's presumptions are, in fact, the opposite of the truth.

Any experienced detective or social worker will warn observers not to mistake sex abuse for an expression of sexual attraction.  28% of reported US sex assault victims between 2003-2013 were over the age of 65 but few would make the mistake of concluding that a quarter of all rapists are therefore gerontophiles.  No.  Rape is an expression of violence, not attraction.  The victims are selected according to availability and vulnerability, not attraction.

Less than 30% of child sex abuse is done by offenders with a sustained sexual attraction to the underaged. 

"Exactly 65.7% of the men assaulted girls exclusively, while they molested both boys and girls far less often (20.2%).   Sexual assaults committed against boys only occurred in 13.3% of the adult sample and 10.6% of the adolescent sample. We found that 51.9% of the
adolescent offenders assaulted boys at some point, as compared to only 33.4% of the adult offenders."

"A random sample of 175 males convicted of sexual assault against children was screened with reference to their adult sexual orientation and the sex of their victims. The sample divided fairly evenly into two groups based on whether they were sexually fixated exclusively on children or had regressed from peer relationships. Female children were victimized nearly twice as often as male children. All regressed offenders, whether their victims were male or female children, were heterosexual in their adult orientation. There were no examples of regression to child victims among peer-oriented, homosexual males. The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male."

In another study of 269 cases, two offenders were identified as being gay or lesbian.

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.

In fact, the overwhelming majority of lawsuits pending against the BSA date from before 1988, when the scouts implemented a child protection program.  I am not able to find a single lawsuit or accusation of sex abuse dated after 2015 (When the BSA permitted troop leaders).

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.

"On February 18, 2020, the organization filed for bankruptcy in a Delaware bankruptcy court, listing liabilities of between $100 million and $500 million and assets of $1 billion to $10 billion."

That is, liabilities (including lawsuits) represent somewhere between 1-50% of Boy Scout assets.

"The bankruptcy filing came at a time when the organization faced hundreds of sexual abuse lawsuits. As a result of the filing, all civil litigation against the organization was suspended.  Local Councils and units remained largely unaffected as they are standalone units."

So at least 140 lawsuits are on hold and new law suits cannot be filed.
Topic's author
#13
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@drafterman
Yet we have restrictions on men for young girls. Why do we have these restrictions?

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?

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?

While you are correct that the biology of sexual attraction operates without knowledge of the age involve,...
Thank you. My point is established. I don't care if you are a pedophile or not.

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

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?

If you think it's my comments that insinuate you are pedophile, then you haven't been reading the conversation correctly.
Your perception is inside your head, and I don't really care whether you call me a pedophile. I just focus on showing your arguments to be lacking.

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.

Wonder if it was pedophiles that caused them to make those changes?

I made no comment as to why we have the rules.
You didn't need to. We all know why we now have those rules.

I am not gay because I am not sexual attracted to men.
So the chances of you being sexually attracted to a boy and sexually molesting him is virtually nil. I wonder if those chances are higher for men who are sexually attracted to other men?

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.

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

Do you?
No. But I'm not claiming inflation.

To say that homosexual abuse of boys is rampant, would require you to know the rate.
Not so. I only need to see the news reports of sexual abuse rampant enough the send the organization into bankruptcy.

The possibility of the threat is enough for the restrictions to be in place.

Agreed.
Then homosexual men should be barred from restrooms with underaged boys.

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

For male-to-male abuse, yes.
Thank you.

But the mere fact that a person is a homosexual does not make them a likely pedophile or molester.
And the mere fact that a man is a heterosexual does not make him a likely pedophile or molester, but they are still barred from girls restrooms. The existence of the sexual attraction to that gender is enough.

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.
Topic's author
#14
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@oromagi
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.
Misleading. First because there are fewer gay men, and second, boy scout leaders do not have access to girls.

Boy scout leaders who identify as gay are  statistically far more likely to abuse boys.

The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive
And that was the predetermined aim of those "studies".

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.
Lol. Either way, rampant homosexual abuse has caused the BSA to file for bankruptcy. They should be forced to pay.

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.
Could your post 2015 lawsuits be among those 140 cases?

What is sad is that these homosexual apologists will never acknowledge that other organizations that have managed to keep homosexuals out of positions of leadership, are virtually free of homo-pedo abuse epidemics.
#15
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9

Certainly.
Then why are homosexual men allowed into the same bathrooms with boys?
Because there are no laws against it and almost no facilities would be equipped to handle that restriction.


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.
Incorrect.


The exact causes of pedophilia are unknown.
Two questions.
1. Are homosexual pedophiles sexually  attracted to boys?
Yes.

2. Is homosexual pedophilia possible without sexual attraction?
Unlikely.


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

Do you know what "prone" means?
Yes, it means "likely."


If the person is not heterosexual, how would he be attracted to girls, much less prone to it?
You have failed to consider heterosexual women, which would count as  non-(heterosexual male)


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?
Yes. It was as illegal for two heterosexual men to marry as it was for two homosexual men.


But merely having sexual attraction does not make you prone to pedophilia.
Did you not say, "The exact causes of pedophilia are unknown."?
I did.

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.
[Citation needed]


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.
[Citation needed]


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.
[Citation needed]


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.
I don't think you know what "restricted" means. Hint: it doesn't mean "forbidden."


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.
That is your perception.


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


Please cite a single law of this type.
Men are not allowed to enter a female restroom.
Please cite a single  law of this type.


And, while you're at it, a single law that forbids single men from adopting girls.
No need. I've proven my point.
You have not.

I have been very patient in answering your questions ethang. At this point, I would appreciate you start citing and validating your claims with respect to laws. To wit, you have claimed:

The law prevents men from entering womens lockers/restrooms.
The law prevents single men from adopting girls.
The law discriminates based upon the sexual orientation of the male.

I am not willing to continue this conversation unless you next response provides citations or retractions of these claims.
#16
WaterPhoenix
WaterPhoenix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,094
3
3
10
WaterPhoenix's avatar
WaterPhoenix
3
3
10
-->
@ethang5
Uhp uhp uhp, that's misogynistic! See it's actually the scouts of America. For real though this is kinda sad, boy scouts are like everyone's childhood.

#17
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
First login in a week. Thinking Ethang should go back to creating brain teasers and leave the Chick tract proposals to the experts.
#18
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@ethang5
Agree w/ Drafterman that ethang5's claims needs some sourcing.  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"

The fact is that straight men sexually abuse more boys than gay men do.  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.  Prisons are the classic example but really almost all ultra-male situations end up getting pretty gay pretty quickly- ship's crews, fraternities, boys schools, priesthoods.  Think about  how often we read about five varsity guys sodomizing a freshman with a hockey stick, etc.  I think Ethan wants to call all these guys gay but gay and straight are gender preferences only  and far more men than are willing to admit it will still seek sex even when their preferred gender is unavailable. 

Now, a guy who gets off on violent sexual domination, who gets off on victimization, is probably way more interested in the domination and the extremities of power than he is in the gender of the victim.  For the rapist, the act  of rape is about the rapist- about making himself feel powerful, virile, capable of domination, whatever.  The identity of the victim, including gender,  can often seem incidental to the rapist in the same way that a school shooter often does not care which gender he is killing.

Further, (and this is strictly conjectural) I think that gay men are definitionally less attracted to sexual domination than straight men for the obvious reason that in gay sex couplings, the dominant/dominated are seldom fixed roles but more often the subject of continual re-negotiation, which doesn't lend itself as easily to the empowerment via sexual domination narrative as heterosexual couplings.

Also, I think simple physicality is a real factor.  A dominator chooses weaker, smaller people to rape- women, children, elderly.  Gay men are definitionally attracted to larger, stronger physiques than straight men are attracted to  and so gay men are  further away from the sexuality of  that overpowering dynamic than straight men.

I'm not saying that gay men aren't subject to the same motivations and tendencies as straight men.  Of course there are gay child sex abusers.  But research showing that gay men commit less child sex abuse than straight men is not particularly surprising to me.
Topic's author
#19
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@drafterman
Yet we have restrictions on men for young girls. Why do we have these restrictions?

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?

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

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?

The exact causes of pedophilia are unknown.
Two questions.
1. Are homosexual pedophiles sexually  attracted to boys?

Yes.

2. Is homosexual pedophilia possible without sexual attraction?

Unlikely.
Then we know enough about the causes to protect children better than has been done.

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?

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.

You did say "and", so I took it you meant both attraction and the molestation were possible. But then you use the singular "it" for your duplicitous attraction and molestation. So I ask, which does your singular "it" refer to, and your answer is that "the thing" its referring to is clear?

You have failed to consider heterosexual women, which would count as  non-(heterosexual male)
The question was, "Do you think non-heterosexual males are", non-heterosexual was the qualifier on males. But nice try.

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

[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.

I am not willing to continue this conversation unless you next response provides citations or retractions of these claims.
Suit yourself. None of those "claims" are necessary to my argument, and one of them I didn't even make.
Topic's author
#20
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
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."
Topic's author
#21
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@oromagi
I am not able to find a single lawsuit or accusation of sex abuse dated after 2015 (When the BSA permitted troop leaders)
I found several in less than 5 minutes.

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

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"
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.

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.
How do you know how much male on male sex actually takes place when women aren't available?

But women were avilable to gay scout leaders. Women AND men, they preferred boys. They were homosexual.

I'm not saying that gay men aren't subject to the same motivations and tendencies as straight men.
Noooo. You're saying that though gay men are subject to the same motivations and tendencies as straight men, they manage to violate less. They are better.

This is the same delusional PC idea that homosexuality is somehow more virtuous.

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".
#22
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
What you are actually discussing above is human nature in all it's varied forms.

And also how human nature has been forced to change due the pressures of evolved social constructs.

That is to say, that as a species we have long since not been allowed to function instinctively. 

Enforced post natal conditioning is always in direct conflict with inherent physiology.

Therefore it is wholly reasonable to expect that aberrations will occur.


Boy Scouts and Boy Scouts leadership is just one of those things that modernised humans do to pass the time of day.

So perhaps given today's expected standards it's best that all such leadership roles should be given to proven heterosexual females.

Remove the temptation to aberrate from those most likely to do so.

That is to say, sexually repressed males. 

#23
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@ethang5
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.

Chick tracts? Neither of us have mentioned religion.

If "Homo pedophile cabal secretly infiltrated the BSA over the last 100 years in order to let a bunch of other homo pedos in to destroy the organization from the inside" doesn't sound like a summary of a Chick tract to you then you've either lost the plot entirely or you have never read a Chick tract before.
Topic's author
#24
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
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 
children of the gender to whom they are sexually attracted, why would similar restrictions on homosexual men be wrong?

That is to say, sexually repressed males. 
Yet we have "educated" geniuses telling us that these morons sneaking in under the radar in order to abuse children have nothing to do with sexual attraction!

"I would never let my son be a boy scout."
-BSA sexual abuse survivor
Topic's author
#25
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Your loony pro-homo conspiracy is of no interest to me. Neither is your anti-theist bias.

But you were able to express your PC credentials. Happy?
#26
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@ethang5

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?
Because most facilities only have one restroom for each gender. You're asking that every single building in the entire country to double all of their restroom and bathing facilities.


You praised the same restrictions in the BSA.
The BSA is one of the organizations that can facilitate it because the facilities are often times simply the woods and involves small groups temporarily camping in places where time allotments for facilities is feasible.

And is that an acceptable excuse to a parent of a molested child? We couldn't afford it?
The difference outside the BSA is that other facilities don't take responsibility for the behavior of their patrons.


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.
No, quite obviously the "it" means "prone to attraction and molestation of underaged girls." Stop feigning ignorance about 3rd grade grammar.



[Citation needed]

Those restrictions were always there for men with girls. The so called "new" restrictions did in fact take sexual attraction into account. 
You keep chopping out relevant parts of the conversation you're replying to, and that's making it harder to have this conversation. In this case the conversation was your claim that the restriction for men in girl's locker room was NOT at the discretion of the housing facility. This implies there is a law preventing that. I am asking for a citation of this law.


[Citation needed]

The law always applied to heterosexuals  and their preferred sexual targets. Now it was amended [In the BSA] to cover homosexuals too.
This is incorrect. The BSA did not amend existing regulations and expand them to homosexuals. This is patently false.


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


They've had to double their administrative costs.

[Citation needed]
At all times, there shall be two-deep leadership:  Source. You, this thread
And how does that double their administrative costs?


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


The law prevents single men from adopting girls.
No longer necessary for my argument.
Then do you retract the claim?


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.
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.
#27
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@ethang5
Do you know what percentage of Boy Scout scout masters are abusers?
Topic's author
#28
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Alec
Too many.
Topic's author
#29
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@drafterman
No, quite obviously the "it" means "prone to attraction and molestation of underaged girls."
Then I say again that the word "homosexual" has a meaning, saying that a homosexual man would be "prone" to attraction and molestation of underaged girls" renders the word meaningless.

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?
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.
#30
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@ethang5
Your loony pro-homo conspiracy

Could you go into a bit more detail on that one? You seem to just be throwing around words at this point.

is of no interest to me.

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.