I feel that the ban/law/whatever is unjust to gays.
Now, I may have christian-ish views on homosexuality, but they shouldn't be banned from participating with other boys or being leaders. I'm totally agreeing with what's been said about gay leaders. Just because they're gay doesn't mean they're a pedophile or a molester. And I'm pretty sure a majority of those are straight in the first place.
Now, if they had a stat that said "Gays are 75% more likely to try to romantically/sexually interact with scout boys" I could understand the hesitation and ban.
....but no such stat exists. It's a simple matter of homophobia.
Get over it, I mean really. Again, I've got those christian-ish views, -ish because I don't hate/despise gays, but I've got plenty of gay guy and girl friends, and they're awesome.
Now, if they had a stat that said "Gays are 75% more likely to try to romantically/sexually interact with scout boys" I could understand the hesitation and ban.
actually gays are 100% more likely to try to do that since streight guy has a 0% chance of doing that since streight guys DONT LIKE BOYS lol. but i think i understand what you were trying to say.
actually gays are 100% more likely to try to do that since streight guy has a 0% chance of doing that since streight guys DONT LIKE BOYS lol. but i think i understand what you were trying to say.
No, child molesters, regardless of whether their victim was male or female, overwhelmingly identify as heterosexual.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Implying that homosexuals are more dangerous than heterosexuals. It's discrimination, not safety. The very same arguments used against homosexuals were used against people with darker skin. It's safer if they're somewhere else. They don't deserve the same things. One is lesser than the other. They shouldn't go to certain places. Etc.
