Boy Scouts uphold *** ban!

[DiveDeepSix]

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/17/12790471-boy-scouts-were-keeping-policy-banning-gays?lite

By Miranda Leitsinger, NBC News

The Boy Scouts of America will keep their controversial policy banning *** scouts and leaders after a confidential two-year review, the organization said Tuesday.

The announcement comes amid a stepped-up campaign from activist groups urging an end to the membership guidelines.

“The vast majority of the parents of youth we serve value their right to address issues of same-sex orientation within their family, with spiritual advisers, and at the appropriate time and in the right setting,” said Bob Mazzuca, Chief Scout Executive of the Boy Scouts. “While a majority of our membership agrees with our policy, we fully understand that no single policy will accommodate the many diverse views among our membership or society.”

Advertise | AdChoicesThe Boy Scouts convened a committee of 11 volunteers and professional leaders to decide whether the policy was still in the organization’s best interests after a resolution was put forward to reconsider it, the private group said in a statement that was first reported by The Associated Press. The nearly two-year-long review began in 2010.

The committee reached a "unanimous consensus" that it was the "best policy" for the BSA, Scouts' spokesman Deron Smith said in an email. That conclusion was shared at a February board meeting and recently reviewed by the officers of the board, he said.

“The committee included a diversity of perspectives and opinions. The review included forthright and candid conversation and extensive research and evaluations -- both from within Scouting and from outside the organization. The committee’s work and conclusion is that this policy reflects the beliefs and perspectives of the BSA’s members, thereby allowing Scouting to remain focused on its mission and the work it is doing to serve more youth,” the statement said.

The review was conducted confidentially "to allow the committee to make the best decision for the organization," Smith said.

Follow @NBCNewsUSIn June, the Boy Scouts said the organization was considering another resolution proposed at the group's annual meeting the month before that also called for ending the policy. But the decision announced Tuesday means the Scouts’ board will take no further action on that resolution, Smith said.

"Resolutions can always be submitted as defined by our bylaws, but the officers of the board have no plans to further review this issue," he said.

Boy Scouts review controversial anti-*** policy

Eagle Scout son of lesbian moms: Boys Scouts must end *** discrimination

*** mom upset after dismissal by Boy Scouts

Boy Scouts board member opposes anti-*** policy

The Boy Scouts’ policy became a focus of the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000, when the justices sided with the organization in a lawsuit involving a former assistant Scoutmaster who was ***, citing the protections of the First Amendment.

Courtesy of Jennifer Tyrrell

Tyrrell, a 32-year-old stay at home mother of four, said she agreed to become the den master on the day she signed up her son, Cruz Burns, for the local troop, last year. She had concerns about the Boy Scouts' policy against homosexuals, but a Cubmaster said that – locally -- they wouldn't have problem.

Zach Wahls, an Eagle Scout who is the son of a lesbian couple, has recently campaigned for changing the policy, along with Jennifer Tyrrell, who was ousted from her post as a Tiger Cubs’ den leader in April because she is a lesbian. She started an online petition to seek changes to the Boy Scouts policy.

Smith said in an email that the Boy Scouts would accept Tyrrell's petition on Wednesday, but did not plan to discuss the policy. Another big batch of petition signatures was delivered by Wahls to the Boy Scouts' annual meeting in May.

Advertise | AdChoicesWahls denounced what he said was "the secretive nature surrounding how this conclusion was reached" and called the announcement "old news."

If you go to the link you will see all the comments being made about the BSA are absurd.

My kids are in scouts, and I'm a leader. We don't teach hatred or intolerance of anyone. It's a private organization made up of volunteers who promote belief in God, morals & values, self reliance but at the same time teamwork. If people don't like what the BSA stands for then don't join or donate to them. Make their own club if that's what they want. The BSA are the ones that clean up the parks, plant trees, help elderly and those in need with food drives and such, yet the *** movement is up in arms trying to force their demented out look on this private organization. It fries me to see the BSA being ripped on by a bunch of libs trying to force their agenda on them.

Don't get me wrong I have nothing against people who chose this life style, I have a couple *** friends and they know exactly where I stand on this, I do have a huge problem with them however trying to force it down everyone who doesn't agree with them's throats. I'm straight and don't try forcing gays to be straight, but they don't hold the same respect for us. God is on my side with this however as it is impossible for a *** couple to conceive a child, so there you have it.

Not trying to start a debate on homosexuality, looking for your thoughts on what they are trying to do to the BSA! I was shocked to see as many comments on this article that agreed with it as disagreed. It shouldn't even be up for debate. It's not a matter of hate for others it's a matter of setting standards to instill the value of it's organization on it's members as far as what is right and wrong and being good people who serve their country and community. What do you all think?

This reminds me of the MN smoking ban that wiped out over half of the bars in the state. If you don't like smoke don't go in the bar. If you want a smoke free environment take your own money and time and start your own smoke free one. Wow, why do people think they can tell everyone else what to do with their businesses, clubs, etc.

Edited July 17, 2012 by DiveDeepSix

[Black Swan]

Deep, while you are posting this in somewhat of a non-threating way, I must say that it reeks of homophobia and feeds into the fear that somehow homosexuality leads to Child molestation. Nothing could be further from the truth. I've pasted a study on this subject, and it specifically address the BSA. I've also taken the liberity to paste the conclusion at the top, as I doubt very many on this site will have the intellectual and moral fortitude to read it all. But I hope that it may allievate some of your concerns.

Tiff

Conclusion

The empirical research does not show that *** or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.

Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

Members of disliked minority groups are often stereotyped as representing a danger to the majority's most vulnerable members. For example, Jews in the Middle Ages were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices. Black men in the United States were often lynched after being falsely accused of raping White women.

In a similar fashion, *** people have often been portrayed as a threat to children. Back in 1977, when Anita Bryant campaigned successfully to repeal a Dade County (FL) ordinance prohibiting anti-*** discrimination, she named her organization "Save Our Children," and warned that "a particularly deviant-minded [***] teacher could sexually molest children" (Bryant, 1977, p. 114). [bibliographic references are on a different web page]

In recent years, antigay activists have routinely asserted that *** people are child molesters. This argument was often made in debates about the Boy Scouts of America's policy to exclude *** scouts and scoutmasters. More recently, in the wake of Rep. Mark Foley's resignation from the US House of Representatives in 2006, antigay activists and their supporters seized on the scandal to revive this canard.

It has also been raised in connection with scandals about the Catholic church's attempts to cover up the abuse of young males by priests. Indeed, the Vatican's early response to the 2002 revelations of widespread Church cover-ups of sexual abuse by priests was to declare that *** men should not be ordained.

Public belief in the stereotype The number of Americans who believe the myth that *** people are child molesters has declined substantially. In a 1970 national survey, more than 70% of respondents agreed with the assertions that "Homosexuals are dangerous as teachers or youth leaders because they try to get sexually involved with children" or that "Homosexuals try to play sexually with children if they cannot get an adult partner."1

By contrast, in a 1999 national poll, the belief that most *** men are likely to molest or abuse children was endorsed by only 19% of heterosexual men and 10% of heterosexual women. Even fewer – 9% of men and 6% of women – regarded most lesbians as child molesters.

Consistent with these findings, Gallup polls have found that an increasing number of Americans would allow *** people to be elementary school teachers. For example, the proportion was 54% in 2005, compared to 27% in 1977.

Examining the Research Even though most Americans don't regard *** people as child molesters, confusion remains widespread in this area. To understand the facts, it is important to examine the results of scientific research. However, when we evaluate research on child molestation, our task is complicated by several problems.

One problem is that none of the studies in this area have obtained data from a probability sample, that is, a sample that can be assumed to be representative of the population of all child molesters. Rather, most research has been conducted only with convicted perpetrators or with pedophiles who sought professional help. Consequently, they may not accurately describe child molesters who have never been caught or have not sought treatment.

Terminology A second problem is that the terminology used in this area is often confusing and can even be misleading. We can begin to address that problem by defining some basic terms.

Pedophilia and child molestation are used in different ways, even by professionals. Pedophilia usually refers to an adult psychological disorder characterized by a preference for prepubescent children as sexual partners; this preference may or may not be acted upon. The term hebephilia is sometimes used to describe adult sexual attractions to adolescents or children who have reached puberty.

Whereas pedophilia and hebephilia refer to psychological propensities, child molestation and child sexual abuse are used to describe actual sexual contact between an adult and someone who has not reached the legal age of consent. In this context, the latter individual is referred to as a child, even though he or she may be a teenager.

Although the terms are not always applied consistently, it is useful to distinguish between pedophiles/hebephiles and child molesters/abusers. Pedophilia and hebephilia are diagnostic labels that refer to psychological attractions. Not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually molest children; an adult can be attracted to children or adolescents without ever actually engaging in sexual contact with them.

Child molestation and child sexual abuse refer to actions, and don't imply a particular psychological makeup or motive on the part of the perpetrator. Not all incidents of child sexual abuse are perpetrated by pedophiles or hebephiles; in some cases, the perpetrator has other motives for his or her actions and does not manifest an ongoing pattern of sexual attraction to children.

Thus, not all child sexual abuse is perpetrated by pedophiles (or hebephiles) and not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually commit abuse. Consequently, it is important to use terminology carefully.

Another problem related to terminology arises because sexual abuse of male children by adult men2 is often referred to as "homosexual molestation." The adjective "homosexual" (or "heterosexual" when a man abuses a female child) refers to the victim's gender in relation to that of the perpetrator. Unfortunately, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrator's sexual orientation.

To avoid this confusion, it is preferable to refer to men's sexual abuse of boys with the more accurate label of male-male molestation. Similarly, it is preferable to refer to men's abuse of girls as male-female molestation. These labels are more accurate because they describe the sex of the individuals involved but don't implicitly convey unwarranted assumptions about the perpetrator's sexual orientation.

Typologies of Offenders The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes.

Over the years, this fact has been incorporated into various systems for categorizing child molesters. For example, Finkelhor and Araji (1986) proposed that perpetrators' sexual attractions should be conceptualized as ranging along a continuum – from exclusive interest in children at one extreme, to exclusive interest in adult partners at the other end.

Typologies of offenders have often included a distinction between those with an enduring primary preference for children as sexual partners and those who have established age-appropriate relationships but become sexually involved with children under unusual circumstances of extreme stress. Perpetrators in the first category – those with a more or less exclusive interest in children – have been labeled fixated. Fixation means "a temporary or permanent arrestment of psychological maturation resulting from unresolved formative issues which persist and underlie the organization of subsequent phases of development" (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978, p. 176). Many clinicians view fixated offenders as being "stuck" at an early stage of psychological development.

By contrast, other molesters are described as regressed. Regression is "a temporary or permanent appearance of primitive behavior after more mature forms of expression had been attained, regardless of whether the immature behavior was actually manifested earlier in the individual's development" (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978, p. 177). Regressed offenders have developed an adult sexual orientation but under certain conditions (such as extreme stress) they return to an earlier, less mature psychological state and engage in sexual contact with children.

Some typologies of child molesters divide the fixation-regression distinction into multiple categories, and some include additional categories as well (e.g., Knight, 1989).

For the present discussion, the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women.

Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as "fixated;" 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that "in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women....There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males..." (p.180).

Other Approaches Other researchers have taken different approaches, but have similarly failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a *** or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994).

In yet another approach to studying adult sexual attraction to children, some Canadian researchers observed how homosexual and heterosexual adult men responded to slides of males and females of various ages (child, pubescent, and mature adult). All of the research subjects were first screened to ensure that they preferred physically mature sexual partners. In some of the slides shown to subjects, the model was clothed; in others, he or she was nude. The slides were accompanied by audio recordings. The recordings paired with the nude models described an imaginary sexual interaction between the model and the subject. The recordings paired with the pictures of clothed models described the model engaging in neutral activities (e.g., swimming). To measure sexual arousal, changes in the subjects' penis volume were monitored while they watched the slides and listened to the audiotapes. The researchers found that homosexual males responded no more to male children than heterosexual males responded to female children (Freund et al., 1989).

Science cannot prove a negative. Thus, these studies do not prove that homosexual or bisexual males are no more likely than heterosexual males to molest children. However, each of them failed to prove the alternative hypothesis that homosexual males are more likely than heterosexual men to molest children or to be sexually attracted to children or adolescents.

The Mainstream

View Reflecting the results of these and other studies, the mainstream view among researchers and professionals who work in the area of child sexual abuse is that homosexual and bisexual men do not pose any special threat to children. For example, in one review of the scientific literature, noted authority Dr. A. Nicholas Groth wrote:

Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147).

In a more recent literature review, Dr. Nathaniel McConaghy (1998) similarly cautioned against confusing homosexuality with pedophilia. He noted, "The man who offends against prepubertal or immediately postpubertal boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women" (p. 259).

This well known lack of a linkage between homosexuality and child molestation accounts for why relatively little research has directly addressed the issue. Proving something we already know simply isn't a priority. Indeed, a commentary that accompanied publication of the 1994 study by Jenny et al. in Pediatrics noted that debates about *** people as molesters "have little to do with everyday child abuse" and lamented that they distract lawmakers and the public from dealing with the real problem of children's sexual mistreatment (Krugman, 1994).

Other

Sexual Abuse In scandals involving the Catholic church, the victims of sexual abuse were often adolescent boys rather than small children. Similarly, the 2006 congressional page scandal involved males who were at least 16 years old.

These are cases in which the term pedophilia – referring as it does to attractions to prepubescent children – can cause confusion. Rather than pedophilia, the accusations stemming from these scandals raised the question of whether *** people shouldn't be trusted in positions of authority where there is any opportunity for sexually harassing or abusing others.

Here again, there is no inherent connection between an adult's sexual orientation and her or his propensity for endangering others. Scientific research provides no evidence that homosexual people are less likely than heterosexuals to exercise good judgment and appropriate discretion in their employment settings. There are no data, for example, showing that *** men and lesbians are more likely than heterosexual men and women to sexually harass their subordinates in the workplace. Data from studies using a variety of psychological measures do not indicate that *** people are more likely than heterosexuals to possess any psychological characteristics that would make them less capable of controlling their sexual urges, refraining from the abuse of power, obeying rules and laws, interacting effectively with others, or exercising good judgment in handling authority. As explained elsewhere on this site, sexual orientation is not a mental illness nor is it inherently associated with impaired psychological functioning.

*** men and lesbians function effectively in a wide variety of employment settings. The research literature doesn't reveal any differences between heterosexuals, bisexuals, and homosexuals in job performance or ability to properly exercise authority in supervisory roles. As indicated by workplace policies around the United States, a large and growing number of private and public employers do not perceive a problem with hiring *** and bisexual people as employees or managers. Many corporations, educational institutions, and local governments have adopted policies that prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual orientation. Many of those organizations provide benefits such as health insurance for employees' same-sex partners. Indeed, one widely cited reason for offering such benefits is that they enable a company to remain competitive by attracting high quality employees who happen to be ***, lesbian, or bisexual.

Thus, there is no factual basis for organizations to avoid hiring homosexual or bisexual people, simply on the basis of their sexual orientation, for positions that involve responsibility for or supervision of others, whether children, adolescents, or adults.

What About Claims That Scientific Research Proves *** Men Are Likely To Molest Children?

Some conservative groups have argued that scientific research strongly supports their claims that homosexuality and pedophilia are linked. The Family Research Council has produced what is perhaps the most extensive attempt to document this claim. It is an article by Timothy J. Dailey titled Homosexuality and Child Abuse.

With 76 footnotes, many of them referring to papers in scientific journals, it appears at first glance to be a thorough and scholarly discussion of the issue. On further examination, however, its central argument – that "the evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls" – doesn't hold up.

In the following section, the main sources cited by Dailey and the FRC to support their claim are reviewed. The papers are listed in the same order in which they are first cited by the FRC article.

Freund et al. (1989). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and erotic age preference. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 107-117.

This article is discussed above in the "Other Approaches" section. As the FRC concedes, it contradicts their argument. The abstract summarizes the authors' conclusion: "Findings indicate that homosexual males who preferred mature partners responded no more to male children than heterosexual males who preferred mature partners responded to female children."

Silverthorne & Quinsey. (2000). Sexual partner age preferences of homosexual and heterosexual men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 67-76.

The FRC cites this study to challenge the Freund et al. data (see the previous paper above). However, the methodologies were quite different. Freund and his colleagues used a sample that included sex offenders and they assessed sexual arousal with a physiological measure similar to that described below for the 1988 Marshall et al. study. Silverthorne and Quinsey used a sample of community volunteers who were asked to view pictures of human faces and use a 7-point scale to rate their sexual attractiveness. The apparent ages of the people portrayed in the pictures was originally estimated by Dr. Silverthorne to range from 15 to 50. However, a group of independent raters perceived the male faces to range in age from 18 to 58, and the female faces to range from 19 to 60.

The article doesn't report the data in great detail (e.g., average ratings are depicted only in a graphic; the actual numbers aren't reported) and the authors provide contradictory information about the rating scale (they describe it as a 7-point scale but also say it ranged from 0 to 7, which constitutes an 8-point scale). In either case, it appears that none of the pictures was rated as "very sexually attractive" (a rating of 7). Rather, the highest average ratings were approximately 5.

On average, *** men rated the 18-year old male faces the most attractive (average rating = about 5), with attractiveness ratings declining steadily for older faces. They rated the 58-year old male faces 2, on average. By contrast, heterosexual men rated the 25-year old female faces the most attractive (about 5), with the 18- and 28-year old female faces rated lower (between 2 and 3) and the 60-year old female faces rated the least attractive (about 1).

A serious problem with this study is that the researchers didn't control for the possibility that some of the faces pictured in the photos might simply have been more or less physically attractive than the others, independent of their age or gender. The researchers explicitly acknowledged this shortcoming, speculating that the women's faces in the 25-year old group might have been more attractive than women's faces in the other age groups. But they didn't address the possibility that the attractiveness of the male and female faces may not have been comparable.

This issue could have been addressed in various ways. For example, prior to collecting data, the researchers could have started with a large number of photographs and asked a group of independent raters to evaluate the general physical attractiveness of the face in each photo; these ratings could have been used to select photos for the experiment that were equivalent in attractiveness. Getting independent ratings of experimental stimuli in this way is a common procedure in social psychological research.

Thus, even if one accepts the questionable assumption that this study is relevant, it doesn't support the FRC's contention that *** men are more likely than heterosexual men to be child molesters for several reasons:

the researchers failed to control for the varying attractiveness of the different photos; all of the faces portrayed in the photos were perceived to be at least 18; and

the study merely assessed judgments of sexual attractiveness rather than the research participants' sexual arousal.

Blanchard et al. (2000). Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 463-478.

This study categorized convicted sex offenders according to whether they molested or reported sexual attraction to boys only, girls only, or both boys and girls. These groups were labeled, respectively, homosexual pedophiles, heterosexual pedophiles, and bisexual pedophiles. This classification referred to their attractions to children. Adult sexual orientation (or even whether the men had an adult sexual orientation) wasn't assessed.

Elliott et al. (1995). Child sexual abuse prevention: What offenders tell us. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19, 579-594.

In this study, child sex offenders were interviewed. Their sexual orientation (***, heterosexual, bisexual) wasn't assessed. The authors drew from their findings to suggest strategies for how parents and children can prevent sexual victimization. It is noteworthy that none of those strategies involved avoiding *** men.

Jenny et al. (1994). Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? Pediatrics, 94, 41-44.

This study, described above in the section on "Other Approaches," contradicts the FRC's argument. The FRC faults the study because the researchers didn't directly interview perpetrators but instead relied on the victims' medical charts for information about the offender's sexual orientation. However, other studies cited favorably by the FRC (and summarized in this section) similarly relied on chart data (Erickson et al., 1988) or did not directly assess the sexual orientation of perpetrators (Blanchard et al. 2000; Elliott et al. 1995; Marshall et al., 1988). Thus, the FRC apparently considers this method a weakness only when it leads to results they dislike.

Marshall et al. (1988). Sexual offenders against male children: Sexual preference. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 26, 383-391.

In this study, the researchers compared 21 men who had sexually molested a male under 16 years (and at least 5 years younger than themselves) to 18 unemployed men who were not known to have molested a child. Over a series of sessions, each man watched color slides of nude males and females of various ages and listened to audiotaped descriptions of both coercive and consensual sexual interactions between a man and a boy. During the sessions, each man sat in a private booth, where he was instructed to lower his trousers and underwear and attach a rubber tube to his penis. The tube detected any changes in penis circumference, with increases interpreted as indicating sexual arousal.

The FRC cites this study as showing that "a homosexual and a heterosexual subgroup can be delineated among these offenders." This is true but hardly relevant to their claims.

The researchers categorized 7 offenders who were more aroused overall by the male nudes than the female nudes as the homosexual subgroup. They categorized 14 offenders who were more aroused overall by the female nudes as the heterosexual subgroup. The offenders were not asked their sexual orientation (***, straight, bisexual) and the paper does not report any information about the nature of the offenders' adult sexual relationships, or even if they had any such relationships.

Bickley & Beech. (2001). Classifying child abusers: Its relevance to theory and clinical practice. International Journal Of Offender Therapy And Comparative Criminology, 45, 51-69.

This is a literature review and theoretical paper that discusses the strengths and weaknesses of various systems for classifying child molesters. In citing this study, the FRC says it:

refers to homosexual pedophiles as a "distinct group." The victims of homosexual pedophiles "were more likely to be strangers, that they were more likely to have engaged in paraphiliac behavior separate from that involved in the offence, and that they were more likely to have past convictions for sexual offences.... Other studies [showed a] greater risk of reoffending than those who had offended against girls" and that the "recidivism rate for male-victim offenders is approximately twice that for female-victim offenders."

In reality, however, the paper was summarizing the findings of other studies, not reporting new data. In the passage excerpted by the FRC, the authors were discussing published papers that used a classification system focusing entirely on the sex of victims (not whether the perpetrator is straight or ***). Here is the complete text (the passages that FRC omitted are highlighted):

"Grubin and Kennedy (1991) reported that when dividing sex offenders based simply on the sex of their victims, offenders against boys stood out as a distinct group. They noted that their victims were more likely to be strangers, that they were more likely to have engaged in paraphiliac behavior separate from that involved in the offence, and they were more likely to have past convictions for sexual offences. Other studies have employed the sex-of-victim approach in the prediction of future risk, with offenders who have sexually abused boys or both boys and girls reported as having more victims and being at greater risk of reoffending than those who had offended against girls only [bibliographic references omitted]. In the nondiagnostic remarks, DSM-IV (APA, 1994) claims that the recidivism rate for male-victim offenders is approximately twice that for female-victim offenders, and although not demonstrating such a marked difference, Furby,Weinrott, and Blackshaw (1989), in an extensive review of recidivism rates, found that reoffending was higher for male victim offenders. [¶] However, the sex-of-victim distinction has not been consistently found, and contrasting findings have been reported in studies that have demonstrated no differences in recidivism rates between the groups [bibliographic references omitted]. Furthermore, Abel, Becker, Murphy, and Flanagan (1981) found that those child molesters who offended against girls reported more than twice as many victims as those who had offended against boys, a finding contrary to the hypothesized outcome." (p. 56)

Jay & Young. (1977). The *** report: Lesbians and *** men speak out about sexual experiences and lifestyles. New York: Summit.

This book, published nearly 30 years ago by a team of writer-activists, is not a scientific study. The authors' survey methodology is not reported in detail and, because it was a journalistic work, the survey was never subjected to scientific peer review.

Erickson et al. (1988). Behavior patterns of child molesters. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 17, 77-86.

This study was based on a retrospective review of the medical records of male sex offenders admitted to the Minnesota Security Hospital between 1975 and 1984. Apparently, 70% of the men abused girls, 26% abused boys, and 4% abused children of both sexes. (The paper is unclear in that it doesn't explain how perpetrators with multiple victims were counted.) The paper asserts in passing that "Eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual" (p. 83). However, no details are provided about how this information was ascertained, making it difficult to interpret. Nor did the authors report the number of homosexual versus bisexual offenders, a distinction that the Groth and Birnbaum study (described above) indicates is relevant.

In summary, the scientific sources cited by the FRC report do not support their argument. Most of the studies they referenced did not even assess the sexual orientation of abusers. Two studies explicitly concluded that sexual orientation and child molestation are unrelated. Notably, the FRC failed to cite the 1978 study by Groth and Birnbaum, which also contradicted their argument. Only one study (Erickson et al., 1988) might be interpreted as supporting the FRC argument, and it failed to detail its measurement procedures and did not differentiate bisexual from homosexual offenders.

Do Any Studies Claim To Show That Homosexuals Are More Likely To Molest Children?

One individual has claimed to have data that prove homosexuals to be child molesters at a higher rate than heterosexuals. That person is Paul Cameron. As detailed elsewhere on this site, Cameron's survey data are subject to so many methodological flaws as to be virtually meaningless. Even so, his assertions are sometimes quoted by antigay organizations in their attempts to link homosexuality with child sexual abuse.

In a 1985 article published in Psychological Reports, Cameron purported to review published data to answer the question, "Do those who commit homosexual acts disproportionately incorporate children into their sexual practices?" (p. 1227). He concluded that "at least one-third of the sexual attacks upon youth are homosexual" (p. 1228) and that "those who are bi- to homosexual are proportionately much more apt to molest youth" than are heterosexuals (p. 1231).

Cameron's claims hinge on the fallacious assumption that all male-male molestations are committed by homosexuals. Moreover, a careful reading of Cameron's paper reveals several false statements about the literature he claimed to have reviewed.

For example, he cited the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) study mentioned previously as evidencing a 3:2 ratio of "heterosexual" (i.e., female victim) to "homosexual" (i.e., male victim) molestations, and he noted that "54% of all the molestations in this study were performed by bisexual or homosexual practitioners" (p. 1231). However, Groth and Birnbaum reported that none of the men in their sample had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation, and that none of the 22 bisexual men were more attracted to adult males than to adult females. The "54%" statistic reported by Cameron doesn't appear anywhere in the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) article, nor does Cameron explain its derivation.

It is also noteworthy that, although Cameron assumed that the perpetrators of male-male molestations were all homosexual, he assumed that not all male-female molestations were committed by heterosexuals. He incorporated a "bisexual correction" into his data manipulations to increase further his estimate of the risk posed to children by homosexual/bisexual men.

In the latter half of his paper, Cameron considered whether "homosexual teachers have more frequent sexual interaction with their pupils" (p. 1231). Based on 30 instances of sexual contact between a teacher and pupil reported in ten different sources published between 1920 and 1982, Cameron concluded that "a pupil would appear about 90 times more likely to be sexually assaulted by a homosexual practitioner" (p.1232); the ratio rose to 100 times when Cameron added his bisexual correction.

This ratio is meaningless because no data were obtained concerning the actual sexual orientation of the teachers involved; as before, Cameron assumed that male-male contacts were perpetrated by homosexuals. Furthermore, Cameron's rationale for selecting particular sources appears to have been completely arbitrary. He described no systematic method for reviewing the literature, and apparently never reviewed the voluminous literature on the sexual development of children and adolescents. His final choice of sources appears to have slanted his findings toward what Cameron described as "the relative absence in the scientific literature of heterosexual teacher-pupil sexual events coupled with persistent, albeit infrequent, homosexual teacher-pupil sexual interactions" (p. 1232).

A subsequent paper by Cameron and others (Cameron, Proctor, Coburn, Forde, Larson, & Cameron, 1986) described data collected in a door-to-door survey in seven U.S. cities and towns, and generally repeated the conclusions reached in Cameron (1985). Even Cameron himself admitted that his conclusions in this study are "based upon small numbers of data points" (Cameron, 2005, p. 230). As before, male-male sexual assaults were referred to as "homosexual" molestations (e.g., Abstract, p.327) and the perpetrators' sexual orientation apparently was not assessed. This study also suffers from fatal methodological problems, which are detailed elsewhere on this site.

In yet another article published in Psychological Reports, Cameron claimed to have reviewed data about foster parents in Illinois and found that 34% were perpetrated by a foster parent against a child of the same sex, that is, female-female or male-male (Cameron, 2005). Not only did Cameron again make the fallacious claim that all male-male molestations are committed by homosexuals, he also made the same claim about female-female molestations. Once again, he had no data about the actual sexual orientations of the molesters.

Cameron continues to produce reports that essentially repeat the same inaccurate claims. Perhaps one of the best indicators of his diminishing credibility in this area is that his work was not cited in the 2004 FRC report discussed in detail above.

Conclusion

The empirical research does not show that *** or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.

http://voices.yahoo.com/are-homosexuals-more-likely-sex-offenders-6032012.html

Edited July 17, 2012 by Black Swan

[DiveDeepSix]

Tiff,

I think you have misunderstood my point of bringing this article up. It's not that I'm worried about *** men molesting boys in the BSA, or older *** scouts molesting younger boys, although it is a very bad idea, since a lot of the camps, trips, etc. are done sharing tents, etc. It would also be a bad idea to have a girl in BSA for the same reasons, that's why they have Girl Scouts. Leaders actually have to take training to identify and avoid any situations that could result in something like this.

STRICT BSA RULE: No one on one time with anyone, other than a parent, EVER!!!

My point behind this is a group trying to force a private organization to accept it's beliefs, when clearly that is not what the BSA stands for. Just like I have nothing against athiests, although I believe in God, but you couldn't be an athiest in the BSA as one of the requirements is doing your duty to God and country which would be impossible for an athiest to uphold that promise. You don't however see the BSA going out trying to change the minds of athiests to force them to believe in God though do ya? It's a private organization, that does a huge amount of good for young kids and the community, if people don't like what they stand for don't join or donate simple enough.

I know you are a thinker, and I do enjoy reading your thoughts, I also know where you stand on homosexuality, figured you'd reply to this, and tried to clarify, that I'm not debating personal choices in the bedroom for consenting adults. I want to know if you feel it's ok for a minority group to try and force it's views on a private organization that clearly doesn't agree with that life style? YES or NO?

Edited July 17, 2012 by DiveDeepSix

[TennesseeCherokee]

DeepSixDive...........I cannot fathom how anyone can make the statement , " God is on my side, with this "........Oh, really ? ? Since when did God get into the business of lambasting a group of people ?

[Black Swan]

Ok...sorry Big Guy. You know how I feel about the subject, so I will try to put my emotions aside and present a logical argument. Plus..you and I have always been friendly.

Should a private organization be allowed to select who can make up their membership. Yes....BUT....I think by zeroing in on only disallowing gays, that it DOES continue to hold up to the stereotype.

By the way, Gays CAN be parent. As the study shows, Gays are no more likely to cause harm than straight people. So....if you put those two facts together, may I turn the table and ask WHY are you singling out Gays?

That is if a *** couple enroll their child into the BSA, would you allow them to be a leader?

One more thing, if you were to say substitute Jews or Blacks....then wouldn't it be overtly obvious that it was bias...but Gays (and of course Atheist) are still considered to be outside the circle of trust when it comes to the general population.

Note I got neg just for submitting a study supporting my stance.

[NEODinar]

According to Leviticus 20:13, gays deserve death. Is it really a surprise fundie christians would have a problem with them?

[Black Swan]

DeepSixDive...........I cannot fathom how anyone can make the statement , " God is on my side, with this "........Oh, really ? ? Since when did God get into the business of lambasting a group of people ?

Kudos!

[jaman]

Ok...sorry Big Guy. You know how I feel about the subject, so I will try to put my emotions aside and present a logical argument. Plus..you and I have always been friendly.

Should a private organization be allowed to select who can make up their membership. Yes....BUT....I think by zeroing in on only disallowing gays, that it DOES continue to hold up to the stereotype.

By the way, Gays CAN be parent. As the study shows, Gays are no more likely to cause harm than straight people. So....if you put those two facts together, may I turn the table and ask WHY are you singling out Gays?

That is if a *** couple enroll their child into the BSA, would you allow them to be a leader?

One more thing, if you were to say substitute Jews or Blacks....then wouldn't it be overtly obvious that it was bias...but Gays (and of course Atheist) are still considered to be outside the circle of trust when it comes to the general population.

Note I got neg just for submitting a study supporting my stance.

................................................................................................................................................

even though I don't agree with you about the BSA.. it is an private organization...but,you got neg for ... for submitting a study supporting my stance..

it was very...very long

but I gave you a pluse for it .....

Edited July 17, 2012 by jaman

[DiveDeepSix]

Ok...sorry Big Guy. You know how I feel about the subject, so I will try to put my emotions aside and present a logical argument. Plus..you and I have always been friendly.

Should a private organization be allowed to select who can make up their membership. Yes....BUT....I think by zeroing in on only disallowing gays, that it DOES continue to hold up to the stereotype.

By the way, Gays CAN be parent. As the study shows, Gays are no more likely to cause harm than straight people. So....if you put those two facts together, may I turn the table and ask WHY are you singling out Gays?

That is if a *** couple enroll their child into the BSA, would you allow them to be a leader?

One more thing, if you were to say substitute Jews or Blacks....then wouldn't it be overtly obvious that it was bias...but Gays (and of course Atheist) are still considered to be outside the circle of trust when it comes to the general population.

Note I got neg just for submitting a study supporting my stance.

I wasn't the one that negged you, and thanks for bringing the info you brought. That wasn't the point I was trying to make though. I do know that gays can adopt a child but they are biologically incapable of having one on their own. As far as me allowing them to be a leader, I would say no probably not, and I as would almost all the rest of the parents pull their kids from scouts whether warranted or not. If you haven't read some of the comments at the end of this article, you should, as this was what irked me the most. Calling BSA a hate group, preaching hate, etc. etc. Which this isn't the case, scouts don't hate gays, and at the cub scout age group, they shouldn't even know the difference yet. Boy scouts are older and this policy would cause problems. Would you want a bunch of straight guys staring at you in a locker room shower? Of course not. Whether or not *** men would hurt a child, I have no idea, everybody is different. I for one would have a problem with a *** man staring at me in a locker room because of his preferences. I have nothing against gays or atheists but those life choices do not coincide with BSA values. Nor would a ***, black, atheist. The other thing is why would they want to be a part of something they obviously don't agree with? Like I said start their own organization. Leave this one alone.

DeepSixDive...........I cannot fathom how anyone can make the statement , " God is on my side, with this "........Oh, really ? ? Since when did God get into the business of lambasting a group of people ?

Really? Oops my bad, was a bio major but that was a long time ago. Maybe times have changed and I missed out, but last time I checked God hasn't given the ability to a *** couple to procreate biologically. So yeah I guess until that happens I would say........well you know!

TennCher, if you were to round up all the *** couples and put them on an island, eventually they would go extinct, because they cannot procreate, why do you suppose that is? Hmmmm, but obviously if you put a bunch of straight couples on the same island they would flourish, kinda how we all got here to start with right? Not bashing you brother just looking for your answers to some simple questions.

Kudos!

LOL that's funny Swan, I love demotivational posters!

[Black Swan]

I wasn't the one that negged you, and thanks for bringing the info you brought. That wasn't the point I was trying to make though. I do know that gays can adopt a child but they are biologically incapable of having one on their own. As far as me allowing them to be a leader, I would say no probably not, and I as would almost all the rest of the parents pull their kids from scouts whether warranted or not. If you haven't read some of the comments at the end of this article, you should, as this was what irked me the most. Calling BSA a hate group, preaching hate, etc. etc. Which this isn't the case, scouts don't hate gays, and at the cub scout age group, they shouldn't even know the difference yet. Boy scouts are older and this policy would cause problems. Would you want a bunch of straight guys staring at you in a locker room shower? Of course not. Whether or not *** men would hurt a child, I have no idea, everybody is different. I for one would have a problem with a *** man staring at me in a locker room because of his preferences. I have nothing against gays or atheists but those life choices do not coincide with BSA values. Nor would a ***, black, atheist. The other thing is why would they want to be a part of something they obviously don't agree with? Like I said start their own organization. Leave this one alone.

Ok, lets break this down. You say a *** can't biologically have a child on their own. Not true. At least one of the couple, be it a *** or lesbian, can ACTUALLY be the parent via artificial insemination and/or surrogacy. Isn't medical technology fab?

Sweetie, they are being called a hate group by the mere fact that they aren't allowing membership to be all inclusive. Think of what the organization has faced in the past: bias towards people based on race, creed and religion. Those are now outlawed. Think of what it will be like in the future. When machines become sentience (self aware) and become their own race (Star Trek had some great episodes on this with Data) or if we ever do meet an alien race. This will come up again. It's an ongoing debate, but barriers continue to be knocked down. Stop looking at the outside of the person and start looking at the inside.

Next, believe it or not, *** people can be just as patriotic as straights. So why wouldn't *** parents want their children to participate in such training (outdoors, leadership, etc.) that the BSA offer?

Finally, you did bring up the homophobia part. But here is my take: *** guys act more like MEN than like *** people...that is...welcome to how straight women feel when they walk into the room..all the guys staring at them. Guys will be guys if they are straight or ***...just one of those hardwire things that we have to deal with. Sorry but it's true.

[DiveDeepSix]

Tif, hun,

A same sex couple can NOT have a child of their own. Yes they can get a donor from one side or the other, but with out said donor it is impossible. Will they love their child as much or more than SOME straight couples, sure, although I don't think it's right for a child to be raised in that environment (different topic). But Sara & Sara nor Burt & Steve can have a child based on genes from Sara & Sara or Burt & Steve, however Burt or Steve could donate to the Saras so they could have a baby, yes, but not one with the genetic makeup of the couple, that's why with out a donor they would become extinct.

I've not questioned a *** persons patriotism and agree with that statement. The BSA is not banning children of *** parents to be in scouts unless they are ***, which again at the cubscout rank, they shouldn't know the difference. This would apply only to older teens in higher levels of scouts. Parents would not want a *** scout leader watching their young boys, and that's the decision the BSA made.

Actually, I don't like anyone staring at me in the shower!!

How is it you manage to get me off topic all the time?

As far as *** men being more manly, ummm sorry hun, no way. Most if not all *** men I know, including my friends, have a great fashion sense, but are huge drama queens, and way to emotional. That's why women like hanging out with them, they don't see them as a threat, and can tell you honestly if that dress makes you look fat, without you having to beat them over the head with a bat!

I've got to run, catch up with you all later.

Edited July 17, 2012 by DiveDeepSix

[Bat of Darkness]

You know...I don't advocate hate of any kind. Against races, sexual orientation, age, religion...no hate, don't need it. That includes gays who hate straight people, too.

When my son was small, I didn't want him exposed to anything sexual. He didn't need it at that point in his life. His biggest issue was that there was no REAL Batman. I wanted him to learn to start fires, be respectful to his elders, and socialize with other kids his age...and I wanted it to come from someone other than me, but who had similar values.

I don't have a thing against *** people...I just don't think this is the battlefield for their issues. I support the Boy Scouts because they are a private organization, and share my viewpoints. I support the right of *** people to enjoy their lifestyle in peace. BUT...I don't support anybody's right to wave SEX in my child's face when I don't believe my child is ready for that discussion, much less explaining homosexuality to him.

And THAT is MY right!

[Black Swan]

Tif, hun,

A same sex couple can NOT have a child of their own. Yes they can get a donor from one side or the other, but with out said donor it is impossible. Will they love their child as much or more than SOME straight couples, sure, although I don't think it's right for a child to be raised in that environment (different topic). But Sara & Sara nor Burt & Steve can have a child based on genes from Sara & Sara or Burt & Steve, however Burt or Steve could donate to the Saras so they could have a baby, yes, but not one with the genetic makeup of the couple, that's why with out a donor they would become extinct.

I've not questioned a *** persons patriotism and agree with that statement. The BSA is not banning children of *** parents to be in scouts unless they are ***, which again at the cubscout rank, they shouldn't know the difference. This would apply only to older teens in higher levels of scouts. Parents would not want a *** scout leader watching their young boys, and that's the decision the BSA made.

Actually, I don't like anyone staring at me in the shower!!

How is it you manage to get me off topic all the time?

As far as *** men being more manly, ummm sorry hun, no way. Most if not all *** men I know, including my friends, have a great fashion sense, but are huge drama queens, and way to emotional. That's why women like hanging out with them, they don't see them as a threat, and can tell you honestly if that dress makes you look fat, without you having to beat them over the head with a bat!

I've got to run, catch up with you all later.

Ok...have to break this down again. So, yes, a G couple can only have one parent that is related by blood. So does that mean that BSA should disallow any child that is adopted, or stepchild or a half sibling? Again, it makes no logical sense to disallow because one of the pair of the couple isn't related by blood. Because adopted (neither parent is related) & half sibling/stepchildren (only one of the parents is the blood relative). Sorry but that argument doesn't hold water.

As far as extinct...what happens when science figures out how to replicate both X & Y chromosomes? Then it will be men who are no longer needed. Back atcha’ babe

Now for my final performance I'll address your last section and the one Bat made. That is, the overt way *** men behave, how it draws attention to their sexuality and how this is deemed outside society norms.

Believe it or not...you do have a point. Yes, you can now start breathing again. Lesbians by nature don't usually call attention to ourselves...at least sexually, in public. But G men...well...we know many like to flaunt it. This I CAN understand and realize that it can cause some discomfort for parent of young children. I believe there is a time and place for this behavior..and in front of young children is NOT the place. So...I think the BSA would simply have to instruct the G couple that they are not to show any overt affection to each other. And guess what, 99% of G men would honor that because they know they are under the microscope.

Put it this way, if the BSA head leadership heard that some (straight) leaders were being chummy with each other, what would they do? I assume provide a warning, and perhaps provide some counseling and if the behavior wasn't corrected, ask them to leave. Guess what??? That would be perfectly acceptable to G leaders as well.

Equality for all...and everyone is held to the same level of standards.

See..it really isn't that hard.

[DiveDeepSix]

You know...I don't advocate hate of any kind. Against races, sexual orientation, age, religion...no hate, don't need it. That includes gays who hate straight people, too.

When my son was small, I didn't want him exposed to anything sexual. He didn't need it at that point in his life. His biggest issue was that there was no REAL Batman. I wanted him to learn to start fires, be respectful to his elders, and socialize with other kids his age...and I wanted it to come from someone other than me, but who had similar values.

I don't have a thing against *** people...I just don't think this is the battlefield for their issues. I support the Boy Scouts because they are a private organization, and share my viewpoints. I support the right of *** people to enjoy their lifestyle in peace. BUT...I don't support anybody's right to wave SEX in my child's face when I don't believe my child is ready for that discussion, much less explaining homosexuality to him.

And THAT is MY right!

Well said and I agree 100%!

Tiff,

Read my post again, I said, children of *** parents are not being banned from the BSA. I agree with that, they are children.

As far as not needing men around, come on who is going to kill the creepy crawly spiders in the bathroom!

Night all, thanks for the responses, back to work for me!

[Black Swan]

Well said and I agree 100%!

Tiff,

Read my post again, I said, children of *** parents are not being banned from the BSA. I agree with that, they are children.

As far as not needing men around, come on who is going to kill the creepy crawly spiders in the bathroom!

Night all, thanks for the responses, back to work for me!

Pumpkin...you are using that well know male "selective" hearing (ok, in this case reading) again.

I DID address why G leaders shouldn't be banned, I didn't say anything about children of G parents not being able to attend BSA.

P.S. Spiders are no problem...now snakes....yea, I want a big 270lb linebacker around to help me with those babies!

[DiveDeepSix]

Pumpkin...you are using that well know male "selective" hearing (ok, in this case reading) again.

I DID address why G leaders shouldn't be banned, I didn't say anything about children of G parents not being able to attend BSA.

P.S. Spiders are no problem...now snakes....yea, I want a big 270lb linebacker around to help me with those babies!

So, yes, a G couple can only have one parent that is related by blood. So does that mean that BSA should disallow any child that is adopted, or stepchild or a half sibling? Again, it makes no logical sense to disallow because one of the pair of the couple isn't related by blood. Because adopted (neither parent is related) & half sibling/stepchildren (only one of the parents is the blood relative)

This is what I thought you meant.

Snakes, no problem! Sure I'll have a beer! :lol: Great video you posted by the way.

Edited July 17, 2012 by DiveDeepSix

[markb57]

I applaud the BSA for sticking to their ideals and values. 'nuff said.

[DiveDeepSix]

I applaud the BSA for sticking to their ideals and values. 'nuff said.

Agreed, thanks for the post.

[kliklok00]

What I choose to believe is MY CHOICE...it is ludicrous of me to think others should bow down to my belief system if they have chosen to believe something different.

Whether by choice or because of biology, I am not ***. If I join an organization of like minded people and we do not break any laws, why in the world does anyone feel they have the right to make me change? The BSA is a private organization...leave them alone.

[DiveDeepSix]

What I choose to believe is MY CHOICE...it is ludicrous of me to think others should bow down to my belief system if they have chosen to believe something different.

Whether by choice or because of biology, I am not ***. If I join an organization of like minded people and we do not break any laws, why in the world does anyone feel they have the right to make me change? The BSA is a private organization...leave them alone.

Exactly how I feel, your avatar by the way freaks me out! :lol: They've been around helping others and this country for a long long time, like you said leave them alone.

Edited July 18, 2012 by DiveDeepSix

[leanonme]

I aggree with the decision myself as a eagle scout of 1977. The Boy scouts has basic guidelines that in this case should not be changed. If the gays are so inclined let them start their own organization with their own set of standards. Its a free country. The BSA is a private enterprise. Nough said.

[Black Swan]

So, yes, a G couple can only have one parent that is related by blood. So does that mean that BSA should disallow any child that is adopted, or stepchild or a half sibling? Again, it makes no logical sense to disallow because one of the pair of the couple isn't related by blood. Because adopted (neither parent is related) & half sibling/stepchildren (only one of the parents is the blood relative)

This is what I thought you meant.

Snakes, no problem! Sure I'll have a beer! :lol: Great video you posted by the way.

Sorry snookie..my bad, I can indeed see where it's implied that I was talking about a child, but I meant that if a G couple enroll their child in the SBA, that the parent(s) should be allowed to be leaders. Just because one or both isn't a blood relative is moot, that is why I brought up adoption.

I know we were sooo close to coming to a compromise BUT...pandora's box just slip open a bit with the reference to private organizations. May I try a different approach?

The KKK is a private organization also...so I guess Blacks and G shouldn't be allowed to join them as well, right? Oops..silly me...that is because they specifically don't like Blacks and Gays. Hmmm...when you kind of think about it...BSA must not like G either? Where does one draw the line? I've proven that gays arent a threat to little Jim Bob and Billie Joe. And that G men CAN abide by the rules and keep their paws off each other when told to. So...what exactly is there left to get one's knickers in a twist over?

Edited July 18, 2012 by Black Swan

[aliciadogz]

Let the g**'s start there own boys scouts.I get so sick of this kinda crap from the left.

[bamagirl]

Hey Tiff... when I saw this thread I knew you'd be all over it girl, lol.... Oneday you are just gonna have to come to the conclusion that a vast majority of straight people think the *** lifestyle is an unnatural lifestyle and though we may socialize and be friends with gays there comes a point where we get tired of it being shoved down our throats.... We have rights too and it is starting to feel like white christians are the ones being forced the most to give up rights.... BTW, if there is no hate or violence involved then this is NOT a hate group, just a group of individuals that have their own standards and moral code and it is not anyone's place to take that from them..

[kliklok00]

Hey Tiff... when I saw this thread I knew you'd be all over it girl, lol.... Oneday you are just gonna have to come to the conclusion that a vast majority of straight people think the *** lifestyle is an unnatural lifestyle and though we may socialize and be friends with gays there comes a point where we get tired of it being shoved down our throats.... We have rights too and it is starting to feel like white christians are the ones being forced the most to give up rights.... BTW, if there is no hate or violence involved then this is NOT a hate group, just a group of individuals that have their own standards and moral code and it is not anyone's place to take that from them..

So sorry...I hit the "neg" button (didn't have my reading glasses on---things are blurry!)...sure didn't mean to.