The Homosexual Superhumans and the BSA **Bumped**

So, the Boy Scouts of America is contemplating letting openly gay men serve as Scout leaders?

This is the dumbest thing I've heard gay rights advocates push for -- ever.

The idea that a gay man should go camping with a bunch of teenage boys? Yeah, that's insane.

Not because homosexuals are predatory by nature. Not because they are going to lure impressionable youths into the gay lifestyle. Foolishness, all.

Gays aren't any worse than the next man when it comes to normal human impulses. But they certainly aren't any better.

Would you let me take your 14 year old daughter camping? Kind of seems inappropriate.

So, you acknowledge that no matter how decent of a guy I might be, because I am a normal man subject to normal male passions, it's probably not a great idea for me and my buddy -- let's say, Howie -- to take a group of 14 - 15 year old girls on a camp out. Don't forget to bring a pillow for the mandatory pillow fight!

It's creepy.

Yet somehow homosexual men are exempt from normal male passions? Gay men aren't tempted by 14 - 15 year old boys?

To believe this is to believe that gays are better than straights. That gays are, in fact, superhuman.

That's what the idiots who think gays should be allowed to lead Scout troops fundamentally believe.

Yes, it is discriminatory to not let gays lead Scout troops. It's also discriminatory to not let men lead Girl Scout troops.

Some discrimination has a basis in fact, experience, and human nature.

An adult male that is attracted to a teenage girl is not, in fact, a child molester or pedophile. A pedophile is one who is attracted to prepubescent children. And while some Boy Scouts are in their per-adolescent years (Cub Scouts), camping trips are usually limited to older Scouts -- those who are squarely in their teen years.

It is normal for adult males to be attracted to teenage girls. While this attraction may be normal, acting on these attractions certainly isn't since sexual maturity isn't necessarily connected to social maturity, moral maturity, or psychological maturity.

This is why we have statutory rape laws and why even consensual relationships of this type are considered immoral and are therefore illegal.

And it's why we all think it would be creepy if Howie and me took your teenage daughters camping. Because you know that we are human beings subject to normal human passions.

I can't speak for Howie, but I can promise you that your daughters would be safe with me. Double pinkie swear!

Actually, I'm not kidding. Your daughter really would be safe with me. Nevertheless, you wouldn't even consider the offer even if you knew this to be the case because: a) it looks bad; b) even if we never acted on our impulses it creeps you out as to what we might be thinking; c) you wouldn't want to put us into a position where we were even tempted.

Further, I would never make the offer because ... I'm not a retard. Also, what if it turns out that your daughter is a psycho and I have to rebuff her advances? It could happen! Then it's her word against mine as to who acted inappropriately. Neither of us wants to be in that position.

The last time I checked, such a thing as the "gay teenager" actually exists.

For all these reasons it's simply unfathomable that either of us would even consider such a situation. But .... not homosexuals?

In one breath we are told that gays are no different than other men, and in the next we are told that they are better than the rest of us.

I am willing to concede that gay men are no more likely to act inappropriately with teenagers than are straight men. But are you willing to concede that they are not less likely to act inappropriately?

Because if you aren't, then you don't believe in gay equality. You believe in gay superiority and the two of us simply do not live in the same universe.

Obligatory Canteen Boy video below.

Canteen Boy from Mike Jones on Vimeo.

Posted by: Rusty at 06:48 PM


1 Greetings:

Sorry, but I can't accept your assertion that there's anything even close to normal about homosex. This assertion seems to be getting more and more common (does that make it normal, too ?) these days, but I've noticed that it never seems to be accompanied by anything I could confuse with a rationale. I don't know what your concept of sex is but, to paraphrase, a man's rectum needs a penis in it like a fish needs a bicycle.

Let me share a bit of folk wisdom from the Bronx of my youth. It's an exit, not an entrance or, somewhat more coarsely, an a-hole is not a p-hole.

Posted by: 11B40 at January 29, 2013 12:12 PM

2 This is not about equality. It's not even about fairness. There is no equal pay/equal work issue. There is no separate lunch counter/water fountain/ back of the bus thing. It is about putting adult male homosexuals in 'close' proximity to male children.

How can this be so difficult to understand? It is the agenda the homosexual lobby has been 'pushing' from the start. Is this desire a one hundred percent homosexual population aim? Probably not.
But the same can be said about the Muslim population. The percentage of those who do not want to kill us is probably there. Granted, it is small. And that percentage would be OK with killing us if that is what happens.
Having said that, I wonder why the sane, honorable homosexuals, and for that matter the corresponding like Muslims, stand up and fight the others they 'claim' do disagree with?

Posted by: EROWMER at January 29, 2013 12:33 PM

3 Rusty the only difference this ruling will make is that now OPENLY gay men will be able to be scout leaders. They have OBVIOUSLY been active for years already. Men have also been girl scout troop leaders for years (probably both straight and gay). There are and should be protocols for overnight trips, just as there are for overnight school trips taken with teachers (both gay and straight). You sound like you are in a state of moral panic. THE GHEY !! THE GHEY!! or THE STRAIGHT !! THE STRAIGHT!! HOT TEACHER ON THE LOOSE !! MILF ON CAMPING TRIP !!! SAVE THE CHILDREN !!

Posted by: occam at January 29, 2013 12:38 PM

4 This response is equally valid to 'occam's' statement

There is one fallacious assumption in your article:

It is well documented that homosexual men are FAR more promiscuous and impulsive than straight men

Posted by: Tyler at January 29, 2013 01:05 PM

5 This is nothing more then liberal PC bullshit masquerading as fairness and equality. The damn libs won't be happy until they have every corner of society blanketed with their version of morality. I wonder what Obama would say if we all wanted to take his two daughters out for a camping trip? Bikini's optional.

Posted by: Moshe Ben Avram at January 29, 2013 01:18 PM

Perhaps you haven't noticed, "Today is all about the gay". You can't turn the TV on without having it shoved in your face.
Being from the Midwest I was shocked by the public exploitations I witnessed in Key West Florida. Holding hands, grabbing ass and full mouth kissing on the streets was the norm for fags. Actions long deamend inappropriate for hederosexual couples in a public environment. But gays need it. They need to exploit.They need to offend. It is a big part of just being gay.

Posted by: Abrog8 at January 29, 2013 01:26 PM

7 Tyler, that's a good catch. But is it that gay men are more promiscuous by nature, or that they are more promiscuous because there are no women putting the breaks on that promiscuity?

Posted by: Rusty at January 29, 2013 01:58 PM

8 Rusty:

The latter.

With men it is sex first, socialization second. With women it is exactly the opposite.

Posted by: Kristophr at January 29, 2013 02:08 PM

9 Of course they don't want equality. Since Silence of the Lambs (and that caught a lot of flack) gays cannot be depicted as anything less than dapper gentlemen with exquisite dancing skills. But they can't all be Neal Patrick Harris. Any suggestion that gays are human beings with the full range of human faults is racist or 'phobic or hateful or "in a state of moral panic."

Posted by: Storm Saxon's Gall Bladder at January 29, 2013 02:21 PM

10 I could not and would not in good concious allow any child of mine, male or female join the cub scouts, boy scouts or eagle scouts because of the infiltration of gay scout leaders.

Posted by: obsidian at January 29, 2013 03:19 PM

11 What it all comes down to is money. The Boy Scout organization has lost many sponsors because of their stand on homosexuals. Always the same on every issue. MONEY. I don't understand homosexuality. I don't give a damn about homosexuals. Any man who would rather place his penis in another mans pooper instead of a woman's vagina is weird, sick and NOT A NORMAL HUMAN BEING. Perhaps the world should develop a country for them so they can all move to their own country and be happy doing whatever they do. Call it QUEERLANDIA. I can imagine what they would have on their flag.
What about the right of the majority? The parents who would worry and last the children who could and sooner or later be the victims.

Posted by: Big Al at January 29, 2013 04:14 PM

12 On the other hand, some BS troops have sought and gotten more parental involvement - which is needed in any organization for our young. Far too many parents are only too glad to turn over responsibility to the 'leaders' and some kids don't have a parent(s) to get involved.

Posted by: Bubbe at January 29, 2013 05:13 PM

13 Let's just have Fudgepacker Scouts!

Posted by: Mark at January 29, 2013 07:38 PM

14 I don't remember where I heard these numbers, but here goes:

Roughly equal numbers of girls and boys are sexually abused by adults every year. Almost all offenders are men.

Gays make up somewhere between 1% and 10% of the population, depending on whose numbers you believe. Let's say it's on the high side, 10%, and for the sake of argument, half are men, half are women.

So do the math...45% of the population(straight men) are responsible for sexually abusing about half the sexually abused children (girls), BUT the other 5% (gay men) are responsible for abusing the other half (boys). Sad numbers indeed.

So, suffice it to say you don't want your teenage daughters left alone with straight men, and you don't want your teenage sons left alone with gay men.

Posted by: jim at January 29, 2013 10:41 PM

15 The problem will be solved.
Gays and lesbians are changing the country to suit and favor them.
Muslims are changing the country to suit and favor them.
Muslims will, as they do, hang the gays ans stone the lesbians. Problem solved! Win-Win & We Lose!

Posted by: Kafiroon at January 30, 2013 12:18 AM

16 I actually thought the decision was about gay scouts and not gay scout leaders. It probably isn't appropriate to send someone up into the woods with a bunch of minors, if he is sexually attracted to them, even if he is smart enough to resist his impulses, as most men gay or straight would do, but that is not the same thing as telling a kid who has feelings for other boys, that he can't participate in normal activities for boys.

Posted by: You Have An Ugly Goat at January 30, 2013 12:26 AM

17 but yet teenage boys go on retreats with clergy.

yes, i know its a cheap shot. but i think you see my point.

Posted by: jd at January 30, 2013 09:07 AM

18 and i really don't care if my son has an openly gay scout master.

Posted by: jd at January 30, 2013 09:08 AM

19 North American Man/Boy Love Association: Trust us, we'll take good care of your boys on this camping trip.

Posted by: Live Free Or Die at January 30, 2013 09:27 AM

20 #17 I have problems with male clergy going alone on retreats with children as well. After all, it is now common knowledge that some Catholic priests molested quite a few boys in their charge.

Posted by: jim at January 30, 2013 10:01 AM

21 If we are to follow liberal logic, just like the invented term "assault" rifle (the military doesn't recognize the term) refers to any weapon that has cosmetic attachments that resemble military weapons and have the potential to be used to destroy children's lives, should we not classify outspoken Gay Boy Scout leaders "Assault Troop Leaders"?

Posted by: Wyld_Goose at January 30, 2013 11:36 AM

22 I know this may sound strange but I took my sons camping myself. I also taught them to hunt and fish myself. I also purchased a $7/00 book on how to tie knots. Why pass your kids off to someone else?

Posted by: Big Al at January 30, 2013 01:36 PM

23 Sir. You overlooked the fact that this experiment has been tried and proven perverted. The Catholic religion obligated their leaders to be celibate. How did that work? It opened the doors to a flood of gay men posing as clergy and who were allowed to work with boys. The tragedy of this cannot be comprehended, especially the numbers of victims who live tortured lives because of these gay men. God's word has a severe warning about anyone who confuses what is biblically right with what is wrong and evil. Of course, what does God know?

Posted by: 1Frank at January 30, 2013 10:21 PM

Cub Scouts run from first to fifth grades, or about 6 to about 11. Boy Scouts start at 11 (or 10.5 if the Cub is crossing over to Boy Scouts).
So Boy Scouts run from 11 to 18, which leaves plenty of room for someone so inclined to find an "attractive" age group.
As a scout leader, we are never alone (out of line of sight) with a scout that is not our child. We have preferably another adult, or at least several other scouts. Also, a man who shows up without a child gets looked at pretty closely. Without a substantial personal background in scouting - like an Eagle Scout who would like to link up with a troop after settling into a new job, you won't be working too closely with many troops. On any outing, we have 3 to 5 adults, and maintaining proper distribution of adults is pretty easy to do. We watch the scouts closely for good behavior and safety anyway.
Even in the case of a post-graduate Eagle offering his time, the question of why you would be spending a lot of time with teenagers would need a good answer. Most young adults have many more things to occupy their time.
@Big Al - we get a lot of boys who don't have a steady adult male in their life whether it's a broken marriage or heavy work commitment or whatever. If they do have a strong adult male presence, we usually get both the boy and the dad. It's a volunteer organization, and adults with time and skills to share are welcome. Adults in my troop include a marine now working security, a local businessman, a couple engineers, two school teachers, a plant operator, and a work control planner. Oh yes, and the local DA (although he no longer makes as many meetings as he used to - he is an outstanding man).

Posted by: Advo at January 30, 2013 11:46 PM

25 Sorry for the spacing in the post above - there was more spacing in the editor that didn't show up in the final post.

Posted by: Advo at January 30, 2013 11:47 PM

26 Not you make me feel like a misunderstanding bum because I took time from my 16 hr days to spend time with my kids.

Posted by: Big Al at January 31, 2013 12:14 AM

According to what I read, the scouts (BSA) would allow sponsoring organizations to decide the matter. Which opens the door to gay leaders if the sponsoring organization (liberal church for example) will allow it. That is the opposite of "leadership" in my opinion.
I have never seen a better explanation of the issue than Rusty's. (Late congrats on the PhD.)

Posted by: uuleledave at February 02, 2013 11:09 AM

Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0077 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0048 seconds, 35 records returned.
Page size 24 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.