what? how does that make sense? if a GUY sexuality molested a BOY how is he not classified as gay?

Being gay isn't just sexual attraction, it's also romantic (I'm assuming, I'm straight).

Older men who molest are just searching for a way of sexual gratification, they aren't actually 'attracted' to the boys, per say.

It has nothing to do really with being gay or straight.

what? how does that make sense? if a GUY sexuality molested a BOY how is he not classified as gay?

I can only assume it's not about just a sexual attraction. Those are the statistics though. The vast majority of child molesters are heterosexual males. 40% of child molestation victims are male. I assure you that it is impossible for the minor amount of homosexual child molesters to account for 40% of ALL child molestation.

I can only assume it's not about just a sexual attraction. Those are the statistics though. The vast majority of child molesters are heterosexual males. 40% of child molestation victims are male. I assure you that it is impossible for the minor amount of homosexual child molesters to account for 40% of ALL child molestation.

i get that. it still doesnt really make sense.... what do they count as a homosexual? wyrzens post makes it a little bit more logical... but if they are straight why didnt they attack a girl in the first place?

. what do they count as a homosexual?

People who are homosexual.

but if they are straight why didnt they attack a girl in the first place?

My guess is it has to do a lot with opportunity and some sort of power trip. I'm not really knowledgeable in the specifics.

Anyways, my point remains. Homosexual scout masters are no more dangerous than heterosexual scout masters. Molestation incidents are already happening and homosexuals already aren't allowed. More are not going to happen if they allow homosexuals to be in scouts.

but if they are straight why didnt they attack a girl in the first place?

because **** is not aggressive sexuality, it is sexualized aggression

My guess is it has to do a lot with opportunity and some sort of power trip.

I'd be inclined to say the same.

This matches my policy with anything to do regarding gays, or anything to do with personal rights or beliefs for that matter. The policy: as long as whatever they're doing doesn't effect you, they have every right to continue doing what they're doing. As soon as it starts effecting other people though, then they should have to stop.  Sexuality shouldn't haven't anything to do with Scouting anyway.

As soon as it starts effecting other people though, then they should have to stop.  Sexuality shouldn't haven't anything to do with Scouting anyway.

But in some people's minds...a person's sexual orientation does effect them (such as offering a distraction, offending them, etc)

     i get that. it still doesnt really make sense.... what do they count as a homosexual? wyrzens post makes it a little bit more logical... but if they are straight why didnt they attack a girl in the first place?

I'd guess it was to do with their sexual orientation. It might not matter to them whether they're boy or girl, as long as they're children. I reckon that the figures kasic got to do with most pedophiles being heterosexual could be to do with them also being attracted to the opposite gender that is their age but not the same gender that is their age.

If I may say, this thread is about boy scouts and their policy regarding homosexuals. I think it is getting off topic. The discussion is interesting and I would sincerely like to post myself about it but it unfortunately belongs to another thread.

BTW:

**** is not aggressive sexuality, it is sexualized aggression

The best thing I read in this thread! So right. I never thought it like that.

I think it's a good rule. It's just for the safety of the kids.