Walt Disney

How the heck is that "evidence"? It's an absence of evidence!

But good for jphelan for citing Dr. Herek's work, he does appear to be a pretty significant researcher on
the (miserable) subject of child rapists.

Here's the conclusion from the page jphelan cites:

The empirical research does not show that gay 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.

Seems to me that we should abandon bigoted views when they are entirely contrary to the weight of the
evidence. But some just love to hate the gays, so here we are.

How do you know the OP is against gay rights? He's against homosexuals going on camping trips with underage boys. And those posting a dissenting view in this thread are a bunch of cowards for placing political correctness above the safety of children.

I'm very concerned about the safety of children. Have you seen those BSA knives? Kid could put out an eye.

Today the Boston Brewing Company, makers of the Sam Adams beer brand, pulled its sponsorship of this weekend's annual South Boston St. Patrick's Day Parade.



The parade refused to allow a group of U.S. military veterans that calls itself LGBT Veterans for Equality to march because their signs would include the letters "LGBT". Apparently that series of letters is scary, so scary that veterans who served this country cannot be permitted to march in a parade.



Maybe they have a point, wouldn't want the solemn dignity of a St. Patrick's Day parade to be damaged by veterans standing up for equality.

The title of this discussion was Walt Disney but I didn’t see a single comment about Disney. The majority of the original thread was about the Boy Scouts and the potential for a gay leader to “promote” a gay lifestyle. But almost all of the replies have been aimed at jaguar and or each other and why they are right and the opposing opinion is wrong. I think it’s a little more than ironic that a lot of posts use hate as a way to combat jaguar’s hate of gays. So whose hate is worse, hate of a lifestyle or hate of that hate?

What started this mess was the Boy Scouts refusing gay leaders so let’s stick with that for a moment. A lot of posts have noted that just cuz you’re gay or straight doesn’t mean you want to molest children. You can be a Boy or Girl Scout until you are 18 years old and yes the law recognizes you as a minor until you are 18 but even the laws are inconstant. Since you can be tried as an adult if you do something bad enough even if you are only 16 or 17 years old.

So the question is; do you think the Boy scouts are right or wrong in not allowing openly gay leaders and before you get all progressive on me. Do you think the Scouts are doing this cuz they don’t agree with the lifestyle or they are trying to head off a lawsuit at the pass by openly stating they won’t allow this and therefore doing a pre-CYA? (No pun intended).

Yeah, there never was any discussion about Walt Disney in this thread. There was only brief discussion about how The Walt Disney Company recently decided to pull its support for Boy Scouts of America until BSA starts letting all responsible adults serve as leaders.

The problem was that the thread starter, jaguar4600, immediately went Grade-A Hate in characterizing homosexuals:

Yep, Grade-A.

I think they Boy Scouts of America, like most Americans, are merely evolving on the issue of where homosexuals fit into society. Homosexuals have been a misunderstood minority for a long time, but are finding more and more acceptance by the public as it comes to realize that "they" walk among us and "they" are actually pretty nice people. More and more, they're being allowed to marry, serve in the military, teach students, adopt children, and other things that have long been taken for granted by heterosexuals.

The BSA is evolving more slowly than the rest of society, probably because they're active in the lives of children and there's an ancient, unsubstantiated fear that homosexuals are more likely to be child rapists.

The BSA has a ways to go, but we'll get them there.

I think the whole issue is about avoiding any problems. I'm suren the BS are full of impressionable young men that may be going through a vulnerable time in their lives. Perhaps the gay scoutmaster has no intention of ever "doing anything" ever with any of the scouts, however he gets in a tent with one of aforementioned young men, they start talking and one thing leads to another and the young ,an has severe misgivings and yells rape later. Would be an unfortunate scenario all the way around.

Why not avoid temptation altogether? Let the gay guys be girl scout leaders, they said they would welcome men and damn sure wou;dnt be any temptation going on there.

I think jatki99 just revealed that, in the right circumstances, he thinks he could become tempted to rape a Girl Scout.

Seek help.