Sunday, June 24, 2012

Jerry Sandusky and the Boy Scouts: Does the Case Prove That the Boy Scout Policy Against Gay Scoutmasters Is Correct? YES

"But (you argue with the headline, fool thatyou are), Jerry Sandusky was not obviously gay.  It would not have mattered if Penn State, or the Pen State associated charity youth program invoved, had such a policy."  Possibly true, but irrelevant.

"Why ony "possibly" true?  See the previous blog article on this subject, back when Joe Paterno was being lynched by the media for not acting like Obama (like God, in other words), instead of like just th efootbabll coach he was.  Was the Jerry Sandusky tragedy partly the result of GAY ACTIVISM, and a rluctance to challenge someone for homosexual "attraction" ("orientation")?  It is entirely possible--even probable.  No, lyou can hardly "blame" "gay activism" for everything, but it is not an easy thing to handle unless you have the "gright line" policy of the Boy Scouts.

That is actually the biggest problem here, and why you should not hire a homosexual man--or accept him as a volunteer--to supervise young boys in ANY sports program, or any program like the Boy Scouts. It is actuallyWORSE lthan hiring a heterosexual man to be in a similar positoin in the Girrl Scouts (which I would not do either, unless in desperation).  Why is it worse? Because of all of this GUFF about "discrimination" against homosexuals, and supposed "harrassment" of homosecuals.  When a heterosexual man inapporpriately "looks" at girls showering, he has NO "defense".  Oh, a coach of a girl's basketball teeam may get away with a certain amount of inadvertent exposure of girls in a state of semiundress.  But ANY kind of complaint is going to be taken VERY seriously, and the man is going to get absolutely nowhere claiming he is being "discriminated" against, or "harrassed".  An admitted homosexual, however, can easily make a claim of "discrimination" or "harrassment".  To me, that is an UNACCEPTABLE positin for a yuth organizatin, or realy a shcool, to be in.  Homosexuals simply should not be put in an obvious close association with young boys, as in the Boy Scouts (or the case of Jerry Sanddusky).

No.  I don't care aobut the "right" of people to engage in homosexual sex (a "right' which I consider ridiculous, a some sort of "right", once you get away from the essentail concept that homosexuals should not be persecuted).  What I care about is the CHILDREN.  Did I jsut say leftistss only USE children (as in the illlegal immigratin debate), and don't cARE about children?  Yep . That is exactly what I jsut said.    What is it that you don't understand abut the leftist position on abortion (to take one other example)? Adoption by homosexuals?  etc.

Look at what hapens with regard to someone like Jerry Sandusky, not obviously a homosexual (and even aparently a heterosexual), if an organizatin like the Boy Schouts cannot "discriminate" againswt homosexuals.  What if this hypothetical Jerry Sandusky, in association with young boys, shows signs of "attraction" to young boys?  Easy, right.  You just GET RID OF HIM because he LIED about not being gay, or becuase ou SUSPECT that the lied.  But what if your are "not allowed" to "discriminate" against homosexuals?  Not so simple, is it?  Notice that you don't really have the same problem with getting rid of a HETEROSEXAUL man who lyou only SUSPECT of having unhealthy "urges" toward GIRLS>  Those men have no "protection". from being UNFAIRLY terminated, even tlugh you cannot PROVE actual abuse.  That is the phuge problem I have with constantly expanding anti-discrimination laws (for example, to FAT people or STUPID people).  The problem is having to constantly provide PROOF of things you only SUSPECT. 

Was Penn State, or the charity, supposed to let Jerry Sandusky alone unless there was actual evidence of CHILD ABUSE?  To me, that is an unacceptable sitiuation,, becaues I care about CHILDREN (unlike, again, your ordinary leftist).  If Sandusky seemed to have too much interest in boys whowering, even if he did not actually shower with them, then I see no problem with GETTTING RID OF HIM.  Whose rights predominate here:  the "rights" of homosexual or the rights of innnocent children to be PROTECTED?  Again, the people at Penn State were not faced (at least by the time of the actuall allegatino of abuse) with the kind of more ambiuous situation I am talking aobut here.  But that is the pont.  Do we have to wait for a child to be ABUSED to protect children?  I don't think so. 

The Boy Scuts have it right.  In their situation, a "birght liene" rule is best that bends over backwards to protet the CHILDREN.  Homosexual activists can go to the devil (where Christians may say they come from, but I am an agnostic who has to reason thes4e things out without God's help.  I say the Booy Scouts have a "bright line" rule.  Is the PRESSURE from homosexual activists beginning to erode that a little?  There are signs, which I find distressing, although I think the rule is still in place.

No.  I have no problem wwith a scoutmaster having to sign a statemetn saying he is not a homosexual (or, really, any problem NO such "requirement"--as oto which I have no knowledge of wahat the Bopy Scout policy is). . I see no reason whatever to donductgt an FBI type "investigation" of whether a scourmaster "is, or has ever been", a practicing homosexual.  I consider a "non-practicing homosexual" to be an oxy;moron, by the way.  If a person can SUCCESSFULLY "conceal" that he is a homosexual, even if he lies about it, I would not "worry"--if I were the By Scouts--whether "closet" homosexuals mmight "sneak in".  So long as the POLICY is in place, and enforced, there is no real difference between a heterosexual and a person who SUCCESSFULLY HIDES that he has any homosexual tendencies.  As Jerry Sandusky, and many, many others, porve, you have no assurance that an apparent heterosexual--even married to a woman--will not abuse yong boys.  But if ANY such tendency shows itself, you should be able to GET RID OF such a lperson without having to PROVE "child abuse".

What if you, as an organizatin, think you can "handle" this, without adding danger to children?  Well, I hink you are deluded, but I have no problem with a VOLUNTARY policy of an organization th dealing with young boys (including teenaged boys) that homosexuals (engaging in homosexual conduct, atlhough not with the yojn ng boys) should not be discriminated against.  I have a HUGE problem with the prsent "movement" to FORCE the Boy Scouts of America to accept homosexual scutmasters. To me, that is obviusly putting homosexual acitivists ahead of CHILDRFEN.  I know whhich side I come down on here. 

P.S.  No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). 

1 comment:

Unknown said...

This policy by the Boy Scouts only targets, and only can target, open gays ... but the fact is that open gays are probably one of the safest groups around as far as child abuse rates go. It's virtually nonexistent compared to the broader culture. Ban all of them and it doesn't change the rates, as even the 'homosexual' molestations are done almost exclusively by 'straight' married men like Jerry Sandusky (someone who the BSA would have, even with this policy, accepted in with open arms).

The BSA has a history of hiding and defending pedophile in their ranks anyway. This political campaign of theirs against gay people doesn't have a thing to do with protecting kids, and they know it.