Who goes camping with your kid?

Would you let an unchaperoned 35 year old man go camping for the weekend with your 14 year old daughter and her girl friends? No? Why not? Do you hate heterosexuals? Do you assume that all heterosexuals are child predators? What kind of a bigot are you?

Nah, nobody says that. Everybody understands that you don’t send teenage girls off alone for overnight activities alone and unchaperoned with adult men. It just isn’t done.

Of course if you make similar comments about your 14 year old son on a camping trip with 35 year old, openly gay man, that is exactly what you will hear. Here is the point.

History’s being made this month. Last week, President Barack Obama became the first president to use the term “gay” in reference to sexual orientation in an inauguration speech. And on Monday the Boy Scouts of America — which successfully fought against allowing gays into its ranks all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 — said it may reverse its policy next week.

Just last summer BSA had reaffirmed its stand to keep gays out. But it wasn’t a popular move. Membership in BSA is on the decline — and financial support is falling as well. The Merck Company Foundation, Intel Foundation, UPS and United Way have stopped or postponed donations due to the anti-gay policy of the 102-year-old organization.

Two members of the Boy Scouts of America national executive board: Ernst & Young CEO James Turley and AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson have supported dumping the ban on gays in favor of inclusion regardless of sexuality.

It is probably inevitable and I support it. There are gay people in the world. There always have been gay people in the world and pretending otherwise won’t change it. No one should be discriminated against for being what they are born to be and I am convinced homosexuals are born to be homosexuals.

Still, being gay doesn’t mean you get special treatment. We have long understood it to be inappropriate for adult men to supervise girls in sleep-over situations. We all know why this is the case. The identical logic applies to gay man and boys. If this assumption is reasonable for straight men and girls, it is reasonable for gay men and boys. The Boy Scouts of America should keep this in mind.

Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Who goes camping with your kid?

  1. BigJimTX says:

    I only have one argument to your line of thinking. I agree with your premise and the logic within it.

    However, child molesters are the real issue here. A man can sexually abuse a little boy even if the man is technically not “gay.” He is a sick, demented piece of excrement, but not gay. A gay man is (I assume) no more prone to molest a child than a straight man. If there is contradictory evidence to this, please enlighten me.

    I was a Boy Scout growing up. I loved the scouts. I will put my son through scouting (if he’ll have it). When we went camping, there were many adults involved. This was to ensure that there was enough supervision to go around. For whatever needed to be supervised – mostly teenage boys performing death-defying stunts.

    Along the same line, if there is a gay parent on a camping trip, there is likely also a straight parent there, which would make it no longer “unchaperoned”. If there are only gay parents involved and that makes you uncomfortable, then you have two choices. Get involved or move your babysitting duties to a different troop.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      You are, of course, correct. I wouldn’t leave my young son alone on an overnight with a sole adult unless he was the closest of family member.

  2. oda551 says:

    I don’t think they should change. Part of the oath of being a scout is being morally straight. Homosexuality is not morally straight. This is true whether you believe someone is born with this propensity or not.

    The boy scouts are a private organization that is being bullied into this position. Now, if these sponsors would like to set up a separate organization and fund them, go for it. But, don’t ask an organization that has been around for over 100 years to change their fundamentals based on an outside pro-homosexual agenda. If as a result of this decreased funding the boy scout organization becomes smaller, okay. But, they should not acquiesce principle in order to be popular.

  3. marty says:

    R.D. – I fail to find any reference in the Holy Bible that suggests that homosexuals are born that way (I am certainly not a Bible scholar, just a Christian, so I could just be missing something). I do find a couple of New Testament verses that seem to indicate that homosexuality is by choice…

    Romans 1:27 – And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

    Jude 1:7 – Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

    As a hypothetical businessman, would I hire a homosexual if they were qualified for a job opening that I had? Yes.

    As a hypothetical parent of a Scout, would I allow my son in a troop with a homosexual leader, or older scouts who were homosexuals? No way.

    What a shame that the BSA is considering rolling over on this issue.


    • RUDE JUDE says:

      Thanks for posting this R.D. The American Legion is still working on their statement. I’m sure it will be in the form of a press release from the National Commander or something like that. Believe me, we’ve been getting calls today.

    • notamobster says:

      I agree with those who say the BSA should stand on principle. Some things are worth fighting for. We all cheer Chik-fil-a for the owners stance.

      Everyone here cheered me when I wrote about integrity, honor, and courage. This is one of those times. Society may accept this aberrant behavior. It may be an innate condition, much like alcoholism. I don’t know, but if some of the gay folks I’ve known say that’s the case, I can’t really argue. That doesn’t change the fact that accepting homosexuality (in as much as it aides in the destruction of traditional roles and social norms) is a foundational pillar of the Marxist cultural revolution in the west.

      BSA should stand on principle and deny the cultural attackers a victory. Some things are worth fighting for.

  4. EastBayLarry says:

    Anybody want to bet that their funding drops dramatically for allowing gays?
    Losing a few politically correct sponsors is a minor thing. Losing your basic image and reputation is a different kettle of fish.

  5. JenR says:

    This will be interesting as two of the biggest sponsors of BSA are the LDS church and the Catholic church. I could be wrong, but I don’t see either continuing with BSA if this policy changes.

  6. R.D. Walker says:

    Surprise, surprise. I am the most libertarian Revoista yet again. 🙂

    First, I would never support a law forcing the BSA to accept any member. I strongly appose that sort of thing.

    I also oppose morality laws. Nobody has the right to police the morality of others. I don’t want my morality policed, so I don’t try to police others.

    Why won’t I police morals? Because they are subjective. My subjective and secular opinion, for example, is that bumping genitals is morally neutral whether they are boy/girl, boy/boy or girl/girl. I might feel differently as a Christian, but in order to have credibility when I say I don’t want to be subjected to Sharia, I don’t try to impose Leviticus on non-believers.

    I also believe in weighing rights. I weigh rights on abortion. I am a strong believer in a woman’s right to privacy and a woman’s right to control her own body. I think those rights are far out-weighed by the baby’s right to life. It isn’t even close.

    I think the rights of a gay person to take part in the culture, the economy and society far out-weigh the rights of straight people to pretend they don’t exist. Gay people exist. Their right to be who they are and take part in the culture far out-weigh your right to exclude them. Again, it isn’t even close.

    Even as a devout Christian, I can tell you that there is almost nothing to learn about the bio-evolutionary aspects of homosexuality in the Old Testament. Whatever the case, the laws of the bible are optional and have no sway in the Constitution we all support.

    Bottom line: I believe homosexuals are born that way. I believe in the equal protection under law. I believe that rights have weight and heavy duty rights override countervailing light weight rights.

    In other words, I may not support what some people say or do, but I will defend to the death their right to say or do it.

    BSA shouldn’t have to accept homosexuals if they don’t want to. I support the decision by BSA to voluntarily accept them.

    • Notamobster says:

      My objection is to the BSA giving in to economic pressure. If they came to the decision, absent external pressure, I would feel differently. They are selling their position, which has always been based on their view of morality, for 30 pieces of silver. I think they should stand on the virtues they hold dear and try to engender in their membership.

  7. JenR says:

    I personally don’t care if the BSA changes their policy. I agree with Nota – it would be a shame to see them change it just to appease some of their financial donors. However, seeing as how some of their biggest sponsors are Christian religions I think that they will lose more if they change their policy.

  8. rj says:

    I do not think they should compromise long held standards of membership to appease a few liberal donors.

    I don’t know if homos are born or made or some mix of nature and nurture. I really dont care one way or the other, however I believe it is unnatural, therefore wrong to pursue it (or call) as normal.

    I’d never want to legislate against it and if homos want to call themselves married and get family benefits I could really care less.

    What really pisses me off is their use of “hate speech”laws to try and force change my belief it is wrong if I happen to publicly discuss it.

    If BSA volunteers to accept it then they deserve what they get, good or bad regards to falling or rising membership and support.

    another sad chapter in PC destruction of the country

  9. trebor snoyl says:

    If sexual orientation could be determined in utero, and parents elected to abort a fetus determined to be homosexual, I wonder how outraged the gay community would be?

    • R.D. Walker says:

      Well, it probably isn’t genetic per se, but there are characteristics of the genetics of some women that may make them more likely to have homosexual sons. There are epigenetic studies that show that women with a greater degree of X chromosome inactivation are much more likely to have gay sons. It doesn’t show up in the DNA of the sons, however. They are affected in utero.

      There are also studies that show that that each older brother increases the odds of a man being gay by 33%. This is also due, it is thought, to effects on the male fetus in the uterus.

      • notamobster says:

        Whose older brother? The gay dude or the mom? So, if that’s the case, what are the initial odds? 1%? 5%? How do they calculate that number?

        If it’s say – 10% (1/10) That would mean that a 2nd son would have a 1.333333/10 chance of being a pole smoker?

  10. xenicalman says:

    Soon to be issued;
    1st. 2nd & 3rd class Fudge Packing Merit Badges

  11. Rich says:

    This is long RD. But I wanted to briefly address the question of homosexuality and molestation. Feel free to use it as a post if you like. PS = It seems as if a lot of formattion was lost. If you want I can send a Word file.

    Homosexuality and Molestation

    The Boy Scouts of America – Part 1

    Starting in the early 1970s the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) came to realize that they had a problem with scout leaders (male) sexually molesting scouts (male). Starting in 1972 the BSA began a long string of acts to correct this problem. See http://www. scouting.org/sitecore/content/BSAYouthProtection/Media_Center/SocietalTimeline.aspx#_edn55 (doubtless a partial listing).

    At some point the BSA became aware of information indicating that homosexuals are far more likely to sexually molest adolescent boys as a percent of population (1-3%) than heterosexuals are to molest girls.

    In a 1995 article Dr. Judith Reisman, a key researcher in this area, wrote:

    “The data above show that 1-2 million homosexual men, who comprise a very small
    percentage of the male population, managed to sexually abuse 6 to 8 million boys under the age of 18. Approximately the same number of girls were abused during the same time frame. However, it took 86-88 million heterosexual men to prey on that number of girls. Again, the data demonstrate that the rate of homosexual molest of boys greatly outstrips the rate of heterosexual molest of girls.

    Since 100% of homosexual males do not sexually assault boys, a vast subset of this
    highly cohesive population commits multiple, repeated child sex offenses. The homosexual population has been internationally identified in France, England and the USA as between 1% and 3% (in a range of 1.5% to 2%).24 Hard data confirm international research and law enforcement reports. The 2% homosexual population harbors a vast pederast boy abuse subculture, a public health problem of immense proportions.” See, WHERE ARE THE ARRESTS OF THOUSANDS OF MEN WHO GIVE AIDS TO BOYS?, Judith A. Reisman, PhD, 1995, revised 2006

    In another section of her article Reisman states:

    “Of 90 million adult males:

    (a) ~9% of heterosexual men (~86-88 million) victimize 8 million (25%) girls.
    (b) ~100%+ homosexual men (~2 million) victimize 6 to 8 million (17% to 24%) boys.
    (c) ~3 to 4.5 boys are victimized per homosexual male.
    (d) ~1 girl is victimized per 11 heterosexual males.
    (e) ~50% of white gays had 500 plus, sexual partners, the rest averaged 100-500.
    (f) ~25% white homosexuals admitted sex with boys, “sixteen years old or younger.”
    (g) ~50%+ of AIDS victims (n=279) had oral or anal sex with an adult male by age 16.
    (h) ~20% of AIDS victims (n=279) had sex with an adult male by age 10 (1981-82).
    (i) ~21% Advocate respondents (n=2,500) “were sexually abused by an adult by age 15.”

    Ibid (refrence superscripts omitted)

    Dr. Reisman’s article, WHERE ARE THE ARRESTS OF THOUSANDS OF MEN WHO GIVE AIDS TO BOYS?, is a pretty damning document and worth the read.

    So, the BSA had a real problem. And they fixed it by preventing gays from being scout leaders. This was a reasonable and prudent course of action.

    The American Catholic Church Sex Scandals

    Much as with Dr. Reisman’s research, the bottom line in the American Catholic Church’s priest sex scandal again showed that homosexual molestation of adolescent boys (known as ephebophileia) was the predominate abuse found. Of the 3,000 cases of allegations of sexual abuse:

    “Msgr. Charles Scicluna, the “promoter of justice” for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, broke down this large figure into three categories — cases of pedophile and same-sex ephebophile acts and cases of heterosexual acts. Some 60% of the cases were ephebophile (with adolescents), 30% were heterosexual (with adolescent and adult females) and 10% were pedophile (with prepubescent children).” See, Catholic daily buries the news in sexual abuse headline, Tom Heneghan, Faith Daily, March 13, 2010 http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/03/13/catholic-daily-buries-the-news-in-sexual-abuse-headline/

    The Military – Pre Allowing Gays to Serve Openly

    Finally, much in line with Dr. Reisman’s research and the Catholic Church’s findings, The Family Research Council in its magazine Insight in a May 2010 report entitled HOMOSEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE MILITARY stated in its executive summary:


    A Family Research Council analysis of publicly available documents—the Pentagon’s own report on sexual assault in the military for Fiscal Year 2009, and published decisions from military courts of appeals over the last decade and a half—have shown that there is already a significant problem of homosexual misconduct in the military. This problem can only become worse if the current law is repealed and homosexuals are openly welcomed (and even granted special protections) within the military, as homosexual activists are demanding.

    Rates of Homosexual Assault in the Military
    Are Disproportionately High

    Homosexual activist groups themselves have admitted that less than three percent of Americans are homosexual or bisexual.

    FRC has reviewed the “case synopses” of all 1,643 reports of sexual assault reported by the four branches of the military for Fiscal Year 2009 (October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009). Our startling finding was that over eight percent (8.2%) of all military sexual assault cases were homosexual in nature. This suggests that homosexuals in the military are about three times more likely to commit sexual assaults than heterosexuals are, relative to their numbers.” See, HOMOSEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE MILITARY, Peter Sprigg, Family Research Council, Insight, May 2010

    Clearly in the case of the military the above pushes the outer envelope of ephebophileia attraction. However the rape/molestation notion is clearly present.

    The BSA – Part 2

    So the BSA banned gays as scout leaders. And it was mercilessly sued. And despite ground breaking court victories permitting it to run its organization as it saw fit, it was still sued. And it was pilloried in the press. And so finally the BSA is thinking of letting local chapters make individual decisions as to admitting gay scout leaders.

    The problem the BSA has is that it still likely has all the information that led it to ban gays in the first place.

    And when local BSA chapters do allow gay scout leaders, the molestation rates will rise. And when that happens, the BSA can be sued for failing to protect its scouts from predatory homosexuals.

    Of course, if the BSA doesn’t opens up its policy on gay scout leaders, it will continue to be sued as it has been for years. But this is the far better course because the scouts won’t be put at enhanced risk of homosexual molestation.

  12. messup says:

    One must understand the LGBT movement is about “uncoupling” Our Creator from USA’s Constitution. Simple. Is there proof of this? Yes! LGBT’s New Oxford Annotated Bible, with any mention of “God,” exerpted from its body. LGBT Movement is a Revolutionary MOVEMENT. LGBT is on a massive recruitment “binge” in every way, shape and form. It’s with: Gay Couples adopting children, Gay Students Organizing in schools and Universities, Gay Military personnel actively recruiting and being recruited for service, in every case all suffering untold depravity. A day doesn’t go by where somewhere across these fruited plains a story doesn’t surface of some molestation case of same-sex: child, adolescent or adult abuses. Unleashing this cancerous, mental illness across America will surely destroy “Our Creator,” decimate Our founding Fathers Ideals and forever shred Religiosity from Americas cultural fabric.
    Some examples of this spreading cancer, now in The Boy Scouts of America (An alternate organization must be formed to combat the BSofA’s decision), is offered for your thoughts:
    •On December 18, 2010, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was repealed based on propaganda posing as “research” from politically slanted organizations such as the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network and the Palm Institute. A Pentagon report issued on December 1, 2010 was based on whether heterosexual servicemembers and their families thought repeal would change things. Only 15%-20% of respondents thought it would change things for the better, while 30% thought repeal would worsen things, and 50%-55% thought having the law was about as good as repealing it. Only 15% of homosexuals in uniform were actually planning on announcing their orientation to their unit, meaning that 85% of all troops including gays were essentially more in line with military life sans repeal than with a suddenly “openly gay” military.
    •Hidden in 2010 was that the Pentagon knew of 19,000 annual cases of sexual abuse within the military (the latter evidence was published in the Brazilian newspaper Folha in 2011, and I was able to read it because I speak Portuguese; otherwise, I would not even know about the study). We had been led to believe that gay men could naturally “control themselves” in a high-stress environment with few safety barriers around the sex they were inalterably drawn to. Nobody had considered that the spirit of openness might lead gay troops to pressure other suspected gay troops to come out of the closet, ostensibly to exercise their newfound “rights,” but really to make them sexually available for exploitation. There was little pressure placed on the military by gay rights groups to ensure that gay soldiers sexually assaulted by other gay soldiers (or worried that they might be vulnerable to sexual assault) would have adequate protection or grievance procedures. Common reactions to sexual assault are depression, anxiety, and self-destructive thoughts(proven by alarmingly high suicide rates among military personnel and concerns by Veterans Administration Hospitals across the USA).
    •In 2011, Elmhurst College was the first to ask incoming freshmen to indicate voluntarily their sexual orientation on official paperwork. This makes a person’s sexual behavior a matter of public record (it could even be, presumably, subject to subpoena years later in a divorce or child custody case). Other colleges jumped on this bandwagon, culminating in the decision by the 10 campuses of the massive University of California system to consider tracking students’ sexual orientations. To place such a question on a student application assumes that eighteen-year-olds have had enough sex with multiple partners to compare the experiences and figure out what orientation they are. It also assumes that human sexual behavior is reducible to a few patterns which are innate, unchangeable, and knowable to people in their early adolescence — all ideological mainstays of the gay rights movement, despite thousands of years of cultural history that show that human sexuality is fluid, changeable, and often affected by situational factors (otherwise, how do we explain Achilles’ love of Patroclus and Briseis, or male prisoners or sailors falling in love and then going back to their wives when they have their freedom again?). If every boy who was ever aroused during gym class were gay, the human race would have stopped procreating about 5,000 years ago.
    •In the fall of 2010, Dan Savage launched a campaign called “It Gets Better,” which would prompt Harvard University, members of Congress, and Oprah Winfrey, among many others, to shower him with praise. Ostensibly to counteract gay teen suicides, this project allows gay adults to record their testimonials and broadcast them over the internet to gay minors. Few people raised the issue that Dan Savage has no training in psychotherapy and has many other motives that look and sound like self-serving recruiting. If “It Gets Better” is a gigantic recruiting campaign designed to undercut parents (hint: yes, that’s exactly what it is), with the predatory goal of populating the gay movement and pre-empting self-questioning teens from deciding that they aren’t gay after all, then we have a major problem. In September 2011, fourteen-year-old Jamie Rodemeyer killed himself outside Buffalo, New York. Before his suicide he came out as bisexual on the internet, to the support of his loving parents, and recorded an “It Gets Better” video. (For many years, Dan Savage insisted that “bisexual” teens were simply gays who couldn’t admit it yet.) Was it wise for certain people to push unprofessional quack therapy about highly sensitive issues on children they don’t know based on a model of sexual development that runs counter to almost all of human history?
    •The suicide of Rutgers student Tyler Clementi in September 2010 could have led people to ask whether the older gay man in Clementi’s dorm room, who was prowling around a college campus seducing barely legal epicenes, was a factor in the distress leading to Clementi’s self-immolation. Instead, the public went after the other college freshman who videotaped Clementi having sex and placed the footage on the internet. (There was no outcry of unfairness when Ted Haggart’s voicemail messages to a male prostitute were disseminated all over the internet in the weeks before the 2006 midterm elections.)
    •Once Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was repealed, military chaplains were encouraged to perform same-sex weddings. Since 2008, there have been forced sanctions against Christian singing groups at Vanderbilt and elsewhere over their views on homosexuality, and pressure to disallow Catholic Charities from assisting in adoptions and foster care, because of their view on gay marriage.
    •Despite assurances by the gay rights movement that they aren’t recruiting young people, brainwashing students, or forcing people out of the closet, the movement has given its undying approval to Dan Savage, who now lurks around colleges with his “Savage U” program and forces people like Marcus Bachmann out of closets that don’t even exist. No sooner was the debate about Proposition 8 over than California passed a law requiring that “gay history” be taught in public schools. Walt Whitman’s use of metaphor in Calamus is soon to be a weapon of indoctrination.
    There’s more proof, suffice this to be enough to “wake-up America and smell the roses” for Pete’s Sake! Pray. Amen. We’re in the midst of a Revolution and We The People are being duped…big time!!!

  13. R.D. Walker says:

    Well, I am sure it is complex but I will say this…

    I attended a very rural country school in Iowa Kindergarten, 1st and 2nd grades. This was starting in 1968. I went through all three grades with the same 25 or so kids.

    There was one boy who always played with the girls at recess. He always was friends with the girls and liked girly games. Being kids, we didn’t think much of it. People are different. We sure as hell didn’t know homosexuality existed so nothing like that ever crossed our minds. He was just the boy who played with the girls.

    Decades later I learned that little boy grew up to be a gay man. I guess I wasn’t surprised. It all made sense.

    I knew him as a girly little boy when we were five. It absolutely, positively wasn’t something he decided to be for sexual or political reasons. I naturally wanted to play with the boys and he wanted to play with the girls. I didn’t decide to be the way I was and he didn’t either. Little children don’t make those kind of decisions. He is what he is.

    He sure as hell doesn’t deserve to be treated like scum by people who claim to support individualism, freedom and personal liberty.

    • rj says:

      where and when I grew up little boys like that were known as sissies, they were not hated or anything but were acknowledged as different, not sure if they ended up gay or not and dont really care.

  14. notamobster says:

    Who said anything about treating him like scum? (I didn’t read messup’s comment because it’s too long – he cuts & pastes other people’s stuff all the time – and he is averse to paragraphs).

    I don’t support treating a person differently based on anything other than their character. That said, a private organization should be able to exercise their religious belief without being bullied into accepting behavior they find morally repugnant.

    They definitely shouldn’t give in to the bullying for financial reasons.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      I am not accusing any one person of anything but there is a lot of pretty derogatory language in the comments in this thread.

      I am not policing anybody here and I am not telling anyone to change a thing. I am just voicing my own opinion.