Boy Scouts being discriminated against?

[Tiger Al 0]

And you are a hypocritical little liar.

Ah, namecalling. A weak arguments' best defense.

You started personal attacks early in this thread. Which is normal. You do it regurlarly.

Well, let's tally up the personal attacks. So far, you've called me a hypocrite and a liar, both numerous times. I've not attacked you personally. I have responded to your posts respectfully and thoughtfully despite receiving the same courtesy from you.

I don't care who you hate or why you hate them, just don't ask the public to subsidize and propagate your hatred.

Your right Al an accusation like that is not a personal attack is it?

Obviously when I called you a hypocrite and a liar, I was correct.

You've never tried to hide your hatred for gays, either on this thread or any others when the topic arises. Oh wait, it's not that. You just 'hate the sin but love the sinner,' right?

[Tigermike 3,041]

And you are a hypocritical little liar.

Ah, namecalling. A weak arguments' best defense.

You started personal attacks early in this thread. Which is normal. You do it regurlarly.

Well, let's tally up the personal attacks. So far, you've called me a hypocrite and a liar, both numerous times. I've not attacked you personally. I have responded to your posts respectfully and thoughtfully despite receiving the same courtesy from you.

I don't care who you hate or why you hate them, just don't ask the public to subsidize and propagate your hatred.

Your right Al an accusation like that is not a personal attack is it?

Obviously when I called you a hypocrite and a liar, I was correct.

You've never tried to hide your hatred for gays, either on this thread or any others when the topic arises. Oh wait, it's not that. You just 'hate the sin but love the sinner,' right?

That is a scurrilous and slanderous out and out lie.

As normal you revert to your and the lefts usual tactic of demonizing, marginalizing and denouncing anyone not walking in lock with your views and the gay agenda.

Never have I said I hated gays or anyone (not even devotee's of the Religion of Peace.)

As usual you are both a hypocrite and a liar.

[Tiger Al 0]

And you are a hypocritical little liar.

Ah, namecalling. A weak arguments' best defense.

You started personal attacks early in this thread. Which is normal. You do it regurlarly.

Well, let's tally up the personal attacks. So far, you've called me a hypocrite and a liar, both numerous times. I've not attacked you personally. I have responded to your posts respectfully and thoughtfully despite receiving the same courtesy from you.

I don't care who you hate or why you hate them, just don't ask the public to subsidize and propagate your hatred.

Your right Al an accusation like that is not a personal attack is it?

Obviously when I called you a hypocrite and a liar, I was correct.

You've never tried to hide your hatred for gays, either on this thread or any others when the topic arises. Oh wait, it's not that. You just 'hate the sin but love the sinner,' right?

That is a scurrilous and slanderous out and out lie.

As normal you revert to your and the lefts usual tactic of demonizing, marginalizing and denouncing anyone not walking in lock with your views and the gay agenda.

Never have I said I hated gays or anyone (not even devotee's of the Religion of Peace.)

As usual you are both a hypocrite and a liar.

Your past posts on this subject speak for themselves. As for demonizing, marginalizing and denouncing, you're projecting.

[channonc 466]

“The Boy Scouts’ Philadelphia branch, called the Cradle of Liberty Council, had been renting the Beaux Arts building, which stands on city-owned land, for $1 a year. The city has now ordered the Scouts to pay a ‘fair market’ rent of $200,000 on the grounds that the group refuses to admit openly gay Scouts and Scout leaders...The Boy Scouts, who require a belief in God and therefore also ‘discriminate’ against atheists, are not comfortable with the idea of openly homosexual men leading young boys into the woods. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision (with justices Rehnquist, O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas in the majority), upheld the group’s right to bar scoutmasters who are openly gay based on the principle of freedom of association... But the state, or in this case the city of Philadelphia, apparently doesn’t have to give the Scouts a break on their rent. Isn’t it hypocritical, though, to be intolerant in the name of tolerance, to say that it’s wrong to disapprove of the lifestyles of others but OK to condemn the religious and moral beliefs of others?... If America is about anything, it’s about the right to hold beliefs and views with which others disagree, the right to express and act on those views, and the right to freely associate with others holding similar views. That’s not bigotry; it’s true diversity. So a venerable, well-regarded youth group that has done nothing worse than instill formerly uncontroversial values into the millions of young men it has prepared for responsible adulthood is being successfully demonized.” — Investor’s Business Daily

The USSC did not give them the right to tax breaks by the federal government, state or local governments. The case only gave them the right not to admit openly gay scouts or scout leaders. The city hasn't prevented them from existing, or prevented them from deciding who can be associated with the group, or prevented their right to free speech as your quote from Investor's Business Daily suggests. Last time I checked, the Constitution does not give any group or individual the right to free (or basically free) property. If you want to have a headquarters, then have your Membership or donors pay for it-- not the taxpaying public.

I would feel this way about a church, Muslim group, country club, etc getting prime real estate from the city for only a $1/year.

channonc, you are smart enough to know the tax break angle is merely another way for the gay lobby to continue their jihad campaign against the boy scouts. Those $1/year breaks are all over. Every city, county and state do them somewhere. The $1 rent was OK until the gay lobby decided it wasn't.

Would you support an organization that helps young boys to contribute positively to society but only allows Jewish boys to join and Jewish scout masters, would you be opposed to them receiving $1 rent?

[Tigermike 3,041]

Your past posts on this subject speak for themselves. As for demonizing, marginalizing and denouncing, you're projecting.

As for my past post you are the one projecting there is absolutely no doubt about that and plenty of proof. Never have I said I hated anyone. Never. But there is plenty of proof of you demonizing, marginalizing and denouncing anyone who disagrees with the gay agenda and your opinions on the subject.

Projection, circular reasoning, deflection and two-wrongs are your pets aren't they?

[Tigermike 3,041]

“The Boy Scouts’ Philadelphia branch, called the Cradle of Liberty Council, had been renting the Beaux Arts building, which stands on city-owned land, for $1 a year. The city has now ordered the Scouts to pay a ‘fair market’ rent of $200,000 on the grounds that the group refuses to admit openly gay Scouts and Scout leaders...The Boy Scouts, who require a belief in God and therefore also ‘discriminate’ against atheists, are not comfortable with the idea of openly homosexual men leading young boys into the woods. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision (with justices Rehnquist, O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas in the majority), upheld the group’s right to bar scoutmasters who are openly gay based on the principle of freedom of association... But the state, or in this case the city of Philadelphia, apparently doesn’t have to give the Scouts a break on their rent. Isn’t it hypocritical, though, to be intolerant in the name of tolerance, to say that it’s wrong to disapprove of the lifestyles of others but OK to condemn the religious and moral beliefs of others?... If America is about anything, it’s about the right to hold beliefs and views with which others disagree, the right to express and act on those views, and the right to freely associate with others holding similar views. That’s not bigotry; it’s true diversity. So a venerable, well-regarded youth group that has done nothing worse than instill formerly uncontroversial values into the millions of young men it has prepared for responsible adulthood is being successfully demonized.” — Investor’s Business Daily

The USSC did not give them the right to tax breaks by the federal government, state or local governments. The case only gave them the right not to admit openly gay scouts or scout leaders. The city hasn't prevented them from existing, or prevented them from deciding who can be associated with the group, or prevented their right to free speech as your quote from Investor's Business Daily suggests. Last time I checked, the Constitution does not give any group or individual the right to free (or basically free) property. If you want to have a headquarters, then have your Membership or donors pay for it-- not the taxpaying public.

I would feel this way about a church, Muslim group, country club, etc getting prime real estate from the city for only a $1/year.

channonc, you are smart enough to know the tax break angle is merely another way for the gay lobby to continue their jihad campaign against the boy scouts. Those $1/year breaks are all over. Every city, county and state do them somewhere. The $1 rent was OK until the gay lobby decided it wasn't.

Would you support an organization that helps young boys to contribute positively to society but only allows Jewish boys to join and Jewish scout masters, would you be opposed to them receiving $1 rent?

channonc as I have said in this thread there are cities, counties and states (all over) offering the same to business, non profit organizations. My only contention has been that the city of Philadelphia has (for years) provided the space for the $1. No one in Philadelphia had a problem with it until the gay activists and their lobby had a problem.

What those cities, counties and states do is their business.

Now to your framing the question with Jewish boys. There is probably no one on this board who is and has been more supportive of both Israel and the right of Jewish people to live peacefully anywhere they wish. Without the practitioner's of the religion of peace bombing and killing them. And I wouldn't have a problem with a Jewish scout troop. And I wouldn't have a problem with them getting a good deal with the rent.

When I was a kid (many years ago) I was in both the Cub Scouts and the Boy Scouts. The Cub Scouts met at the home of the leader. The Boy Scouts had a building built by the men of the Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian and Catholic churches of our community.

This entire thread and this entire controversy is because the Boy Scouts refuse to capitulate to the demands of gay activist and their lobby. Do you think the gay lobby and the City of Philadelphia would have a problem if the Boy Scouts let openly gay men take young boys to the woods?

[Tiger Al 0]

Your past posts on this subject speak for themselves. As for demonizing, marginalizing and denouncing, you're projecting.

As for my past post you are the one projecting there is absolutely no doubt about that and plenty of proof. Never have I said I hated anyone. Never. But there is plenty of proof of you demonizing, marginalizing and denouncing anyone who disagrees with the gay agenda and your opinions on the subject.

Projection, circular reasoning, deflection and two-wrongs are your pets aren't they?

You're still projecting.

[channonc 466]

“The Boy Scouts’ Philadelphia branch, called the Cradle of Liberty Council, had been renting the Beaux Arts building, which stands on city-owned land, for $1 a year. The city has now ordered the Scouts to pay a ‘fair market’ rent of $200,000 on the grounds that the group refuses to admit openly gay Scouts and Scout leaders...The Boy Scouts, who require a belief in God and therefore also ‘discriminate’ against atheists, are not comfortable with the idea of openly homosexual men leading young boys into the woods. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision (with justices Rehnquist, O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas in the majority), upheld the group’s right to bar scoutmasters who are openly gay based on the principle of freedom of association... But the state, or in this case the city of Philadelphia, apparently doesn’t have to give the Scouts a break on their rent. Isn’t it hypocritical, though, to be intolerant in the name of tolerance, to say that it’s wrong to disapprove of the lifestyles of others but OK to condemn the religious and moral beliefs of others?... If America is about anything, it’s about the right to hold beliefs and views with which others disagree, the right to express and act on those views, and the right to freely associate with others holding similar views. That’s not bigotry; it’s true diversity. So a venerable, well-regarded youth group that has done nothing worse than instill formerly uncontroversial values into the millions of young men it has prepared for responsible adulthood is being successfully demonized.” — Investor’s Business Daily

The USSC did not give them the right to tax breaks by the federal government, state or local governments. The case only gave them the right not to admit openly gay scouts or scout leaders. The city hasn't prevented them from existing, or prevented them from deciding who can be associated with the group, or prevented their right to free speech as your quote from Investor's Business Daily suggests. Last time I checked, the Constitution does not give any group or individual the right to free (or basically free) property. If you want to have a headquarters, then have your Membership or donors pay for it-- not the taxpaying public.

I would feel this way about a church, Muslim group, country club, etc getting prime real estate from the city for only a $1/year.

channonc, you are smart enough to know the tax break angle is merely another way for the gay lobby to continue their jihad campaign against the boy scouts. Those $1/year breaks are all over. Every city, county and state do them somewhere. The $1 rent was OK until the gay lobby decided it wasn't.

Would you support an organization that helps young boys to contribute positively to society but only allows Jewish boys to join and Jewish scout masters, would you be opposed to them receiving $1 rent?

channonc as I have said in this thread there are cities, counties and states (all over) offering the same to business, non profit organizations. My only contention has been that the city of Philadelphia has (for years) provided the space for the $1. No one in Philadelphia had a problem with it until the gay activists and their lobby had a problem.

What those cities, counties and states do is their business.

Now to your framing the question with Jewish boys. There is probably no one on this board who is and has been more supportive of both Israel and the right of Jewish people to live peacefully anywhere they wish. Without the practitioner's of the religion of peace bombing and killing them. And I wouldn't have a problem with a Jewish scout troop. And I wouldn't have a problem with them getting a good deal with the rent.

When I was a kid (many years ago) I was in both the Cub Scouts and the Boy Scouts. The Cub Scouts met at the home of the leader. The Boy Scouts had a building built by the men of the Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian and Catholic churches of our community.

This entire thread and this entire controversy is because the Boy Scouts refuse to capitulate to the demands of gay activist and their lobby. Do you think the gay lobby and the City of Philadelphia would have a problem if the Boy Scouts let openly gay men take young boys to the woods?

OK, so are you only for cities giving "good deals" on rent to organizations that support those principles with which you believe? In other words, you are ok with a heterosexual-only boy scout organization getting a good deal on rent, ok with a Jewish-only boy scout organization getting a good deal on rent. What about an atheist-only boy scout organization??? or an Islamic-only boy scout organization??

Also, why must gay always lead to pedophilia?? Do you not recognize that they are not the same thing? Why should the taxpayers (openly gay taxpayers included) help fund any private organizations???

[Tigermike 3,041]

“The Boy Scouts’ Philadelphia branch, called the Cradle of Liberty Council, had been renting the Beaux Arts building, which stands on city-owned land, for $1 a year. The city has now ordered the Scouts to pay a ‘fair market’ rent of $200,000 on the grounds that the group refuses to admit openly gay Scouts and Scout leaders...The Boy Scouts, who require a belief in God and therefore also ‘discriminate’ against atheists, are not comfortable with the idea of openly homosexual men leading young boys into the woods. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision (with justices Rehnquist, O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas in the majority), upheld the group’s right to bar scoutmasters who are openly gay based on the principle of freedom of association... But the state, or in this case the city of Philadelphia, apparently doesn’t have to give the Scouts a break on their rent. Isn’t it hypocritical, though, to be intolerant in the name of tolerance, to say that it’s wrong to disapprove of the lifestyles of others but OK to condemn the religious and moral beliefs of others?... If America is about anything, it’s about the right to hold beliefs and views with which others disagree, the right to express and act on those views, and the right to freely associate with others holding similar views. That’s not bigotry; it’s true diversity. So a venerable, well-regarded youth group that has done nothing worse than instill formerly uncontroversial values into the millions of young men it has prepared for responsible adulthood is being successfully demonized.” — Investor’s Business Daily

The USSC did not give them the right to tax breaks by the federal government, state or local governments. The case only gave them the right not to admit openly gay scouts or scout leaders. The city hasn't prevented them from existing, or prevented them from deciding who can be associated with the group, or prevented their right to free speech as your quote from Investor's Business Daily suggests. Last time I checked, the Constitution does not give any group or individual the right to free (or basically free) property. If you want to have a headquarters, then have your Membership or donors pay for it-- not the taxpaying public.

I would feel this way about a church, Muslim group, country club, etc getting prime real estate from the city for only a $1/year.

channonc, you are smart enough to know the tax break angle is merely another way for the gay lobby to continue their jihad campaign against the boy scouts. Those $1/year breaks are all over. Every city, county and state do them somewhere. The $1 rent was OK until the gay lobby decided it wasn't.

Would you support an organization that helps young boys to contribute positively to society but only allows Jewish boys to join and Jewish scout masters, would you be opposed to them receiving $1 rent?

channonc as I have said in this thread there are cities, counties and states (all over) offering the same to business, non profit organizations. My only contention has been that the city of Philadelphia has (for years) provided the space for the $1. No one in Philadelphia had a problem with it until the gay activists and their lobby had a problem.

What those cities, counties and states do is their business.

Now to your framing the question with Jewish boys. There is probably no one on this board who is and has been more supportive of both Israel and the right of Jewish people to live peacefully anywhere they wish. Without the practitioner's of the religion of peace bombing and killing them. And I wouldn't have a problem with a Jewish scout troop. And I wouldn't have a problem with them getting a good deal with the rent.

When I was a kid (many years ago) I was in both the Cub Scouts and the Boy Scouts. The Cub Scouts met at the home of the leader. The Boy Scouts had a building built by the men of the Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian and Catholic churches of our community.

This entire thread and this entire controversy is because the Boy Scouts refuse to capitulate to the demands of gay activist and their lobby. Do you think the gay lobby and the City of Philadelphia would have a problem if the Boy Scouts let openly gay men take young boys to the woods?

OK, so are you only for cities giving "good deals" on rent to organizations that support those principles with which you believe? In other words, you are ok with a heterosexual-only boy scout organization getting a good deal on rent, ok with a Jewish-only boy scout organization getting a good deal on rent. What about an atheist-only boy scout organization??? or an Islamic-only boy scout organization??

Also, why must gay always lead to pedophilia?? Do you not recognize that they are not the same thing? Why should the taxpayers (openly gay taxpayers included) help fund any private organizations???

First of all if there are any gay boy scout troops with gay leaders they can do anything they want. They do not need or want my opinion. I will say it again as I have in this thread, "I don't care what they do or where they do it."

Second - You, Al & Tweedledum are the only ones who have brought up pedophilia. I never used the word nor insinuated the term. But it would seem that you on the left are willing to sacrifice the well being and and well fare of young boys on the hope that there is an absolute distinction in pedophiles and homosexuals.

How many are too many to sacrifice on the alter of the gay agenda? At what point at what age is it pedophilia rather than homosexuality? It's your hope and prayer that the distinction is as concrete as you want to portray it. It isn't. Have all those homosexual men who hire young boy prostitutes suddenly become pedophiles? Or are they just gays looking for young men who don't have HIV?

[Tigermike 3,041]

Your past posts on this subject speak for themselves. As for demonizing, marginalizing and denouncing, you're projecting.

As for my past post you are the one projecting there is absolutely no doubt about that and plenty of proof. Never have I said I hated anyone. Never. But there is plenty of proof of you demonizing, marginalizing and denouncing anyone who disagrees with the gay agenda and your opinions on the subject.

Projection, circular reasoning, deflection and two-wrongs are your pets aren't they?

You're still projecting.

You're still a liar and a hypocrite. As evidenced by your reply.

[channonc 466]

You, Al & Tweedledum are the only ones who have brought up pedophilia. I never used the word nor insinuated the term.

Really??? Then what were you insinuating here???

Do you think the gay lobby and the City of Philadelphia would have a problem if the Boy Scouts let openly gay men take young boys to the woods?

[Tiger Al 0]

Your past posts on this subject speak for themselves. As for demonizing, marginalizing and denouncing, you're projecting.

As for my past post you are the one projecting there is absolutely no doubt about that and plenty of proof. Never have I said I hated anyone. Never. But there is plenty of proof of you demonizing, marginalizing and denouncing anyone who disagrees with the gay agenda and your opinions on the subject.

Projection, circular reasoning, deflection and two-wrongs are your pets aren't they?

You're still projecting.

You're still a liar and a hypocrite. As evidenced by your reply.

I asked you a long time ago what I had avoided and what I had lied about and instead of simply pointing that out you persist in acting like a child. I've now somehow evolved into a hypocrite, also. I'm not sure how I've been hypocritical and don't expect an explanation is forthcoming on that, either.

Come on, TM. There are people trying to have a serious discussion and all you seem to contribute is 'I know you are but what am I'-type comments. Surely you can do better than that. As I said before, I've replied to you in an honest, respectful, thoughtful manner despite the fact that you refuse to do the same.

[Tigermike 3,041]

You, Al & Tweedledum are the only ones who have brought up pedophilia. I never used the word nor insinuated the term.

Really??? Then what were you insinuating here???

Do you think the gay lobby and the City of Philadelphia would have a problem if the Boy Scouts let openly gay men take young boys to the woods?

Really.

We have been talking about openly gay men. We have not been talking about pedophiles. I will ask you again, where is the cut off? At what arbitrary age is it considered strictly pedophilia rather than homosexuality? It still seems you are willing to sacrifice the well being of young boys on the altar of gay rights.

There was a song in the late 60's one line went like this, "Swear there ain't no heaven and pray there ain't no hell." You and the dems are hoping like hell there is a distinct demarcation between gays and pedophiles. When in fact the lines are many times blurred. You know it, Al knows it. The gay lobby knows it. But they have their agenda and you and Al have your marching orders. Are gay men not buying young male prostitutes? Dose that then make them pedophiles?

Answer the Boy Scout question from a legal standpoint. If the Boy Scouts open their doors to openly gay men and then the worse happens. What kind of lawsuits would they be liable to?

Here is another quote from me in this thread. "There is a hierarchy to the libs groups and child welfare is trumped by the gay rights agenda every time."

There is a lot of truth in that last statement and you know it.

[channonc 466]

You, Al & Tweedledum are the only ones who have brought up pedophilia. I never used the word nor insinuated the term.

Really??? Then what were you insinuating here???

Do you think the gay lobby and the City of Philadelphia would have a problem if the Boy Scouts let openly gay men take young boys to the woods?

Really.

We have been talking about openly gay men. We have not been talking about pedophiles. I will ask you again, where is the cut off? At what arbitrary age is it considered strictly pedophilia rather than homosexuality? It still seems you are willing to sacrifice the well being of young boys on the altar of gay rights.

There was a song in the late 60's one line went like this, "Swear there ain't no heaven and pray there ain't no hell." You and the dems are hoping like hell there is a distinct demarcation between gays and pedophiles. When in fact the lines are many times blurred. You know it, Al knows it. The gay lobby knows it. But they have their agenda and you and Al have your marching orders. Are gay men not buying young male prostitutes? Dose that then make them pedophiles?

Answer the Boy Scout question from a legal standpoint. If the Boy Scouts open their doors to openly gay men and then the worse happens. What kind of lawsuits would they be liable to?

Here is another quote from me in this thread. "There is a hierarchy to the libs groups and child welfare is trumped by the gay rights agenda every time."

There is a lot of truth in that last statement and you know it.

If the Boy Scouts open their doors to openly gay men then as long as they state that as a part of their other policies, they would not be legally liable. But of course, as a part of your theory, you assume that by allowing openly gay scout leaders and openly gay scouts that there would be an increase in sexual misconduct/abuse of boy scouts. I do not assume that.

Take a look at this professor's view on the research done on pedophiles and sexual orientation.

LINK

On whether or not gay men purchase services from young male prostitutes--- I don't know. I do have a hard time believing that the percentage of gay men that pay for young prostitutes is higher than straight men who pay for young female prostitutes.

[Tiger Al 0]

You, Al & Tweedledum are the only ones who have brought up pedophilia. I never used the word nor insinuated the term.

Really??? Then what were you insinuating here???

Do you think the gay lobby and the City of Philadelphia would have a problem if the Boy Scouts let openly gay men take young boys to the woods?

Really.

We have been talking about openly gay men. We have not been talking about pedophiles. I will ask you again, where is the cut off? At what arbitrary age is it considered strictly pedophilia rather than homosexuality? It still seems you are willing to sacrifice the well being of young boys on the altar of gay rights.

This is from Wikipedia:

The term paedophilia erotica was coined in 1886 by the Vienna psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing in his writing Psychopathia Sexualis.[5] He gave the following characteristics:

the sexual interest is toward pre-pubescent youths only. A person with this interest does not extend to the first signs of pubic hair.

the sexual interest is toward pre-pubescent youths only and does not include teenagers.

the sexual interest remains over time.

As people who have this interest would include many adolescents and prepubescents, some experts who theorise that minor-attraction is more common among youth, specify that the interest must be toward pre-pubescent youths at least five years younger than the subject.

Adults sexually attracted to pre-pubescent youths were placed into three categories by Krafft-Ebing:

a.) pedophile

b.) surrogate (that is, the pre-pubescent youths is regarded as a surrogate object for a preferred, non-available adult object)

c.) sadistic

Other researchers used their own terms for the Krafft-Ebing categories:

a.) preferential/structured/fixed (i. e. pedophile) type,

b.) situational/opportunistic/regressed/incest (i. e. surrogate) type

c.) sadistic (no change)

This three-type model as well as the fundamental mental and behavioural differences of the three types were empirically evidenced, among others, by Kinsey; Howells 1981;[6] Abel, Mittleman & Becker 1985;[7] Knight et al. 1985;[8] Brongersma 1990;[9] McConaghy 1993;[10] Ward et al. 1995;[11] Hoffmann 1996;[12] Seikowski 1999.[13]

The term pedophile is commonly used to describe all child sexual offenders, including those who do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards. This use is seen as problematic by some people,[14][15][16] Some researchers, such as Howard E. Barbaree,[17] have endorsed the use of actions as a sole criterion for the diagnosis of pedophilia as a means of taxonomic simplification, rebuking the American Psychiatric Association's standards as "unsatisfactory". Child sexual abuse, whether perpetrated by a clinically diagnosed pedophile or a situational offender, is illegal in most jurisdictions.

As for arbitrary ages, age of consent laws vary from stste to state. In Alabama, it's 16 with varying degrees. From the Code of the State of Alabama:

Shown by articles of the Code of Alabama :

13A-6-70 :

© A person is deemed incapable of consent if he is: (1) Less than 16 years old; or ...

13A-6-67 :

(a) A person commits the crime of sexual abuse in the second degree if: ...

(2) He, being 19 years old or older, subjects another person to sexual contact who is less than 16 years old, but more than 12 years old.

13A-6-61 "

(a) A person commits the crime of rape in the first degree if: ...

(3) He or she, being 16 years or older, engages in sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex who is less than 12 years old.

13A-6-62 "

(a) A person commits the crime of rape in the second degree if: ...

(1) Being 16 years old or older, he or she engages in sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex less than 16 and more than 12 years old; provided, however, the actor is at least two years older than the member of the opposite sex.

(2) He or she engages in sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex who is incapable of consent by reason of being mentally defective.

There was a song in the late 60's one line went like this, "Swear there ain't no heaven and pray there ain't no hell." You and the dems are hoping like hell there is a distinct demarcation between gays and pedophiles. When in fact the lines are many times blurred. You know it, Al knows it. The gay lobby knows it. But they have their agenda and you and Al have your marching orders. Are gay men not buying young male prostitutes? Dose that then make them pedophiles?

TM, you are talking about extremes that exist with heterosexuals as well. I don't think anyone here will deny that there are homosexuals that exist who like young kids. With the homosexuals it's called NAMBLA. With the heterosexuals it's called AOL/Yahoo/MSN.

The problem I have is that you automatically hold a presumption of guilt toward homosexuals as if their being gay is all it takes to make them suspect.

Answer the Boy Scout question from a legal standpoint. If the Boy Scouts open their doors to openly gay men and then the worse happens. What kind of lawsuits would they be liable to?

The same kind that they'd be liable for if it were a heterosexual who committed the crimes.

Here is another quote from me in this thread. "There is a hierarchy to the libs groups and child welfare is trumped by the gay rights agenda every time."

There is a lot of truth in that last statement and you know it.

It's a very ominous sounding quote that really has no meaning.

[autiger4life 3]

Here is another quote from me in this thread. "There is a hierarchy to the libs groups and child welfare is trumped by the gay rights agenda every time."

There is a lot of truth in that last statement and you know it.

More importantly, child welfare is not being harmed by letting young boys go in the woods with a gay man. There was man times that I stayed over at a friends house when only his mother was home. How is it different to say that the lines are blurred and my mother was endangering me because she probably was going to hit on me.

Teachers cross the line very rarely, but it still happens. Should we disallow boys to be taught by women? Or vice-versa?

No, because your problem stems from the fact that you think because he is gay, he must also want to hit on young boys. That is like me saying that you are straight, so you must want to hit on young girls. I assume that statement is untrue, so we do you assume the first is true?

[CCTAU 3,336]

I do have a hard time believing that the percentage of gay men that pay for young prostitutes is higher than straight men who pay for young female prostitutes.

And by law, those straight men are considered pedophiles. It is the same reason why men are not considered a good choice to take girl scouts out in the woods. Normal men are attracted to females. Therefore do not allow men to supervise females. In the same vein, abnormal, sick, weird men are attracted to males. Therefore do not allow them to supervise young males.

[channonc 466]

I do have a hard time believing that the percentage of gay men that pay for young prostitutes is higher than straight men who pay for young female prostitutes.

And by law, those straight men are considered pedophiles. It is the same reason why men are not considered a good choice to take girl scouts out in the woods. Normal men are attracted to females. Therefore do not allow men to supervise females. In the same vein, abnormal, sick, weird men are attracted to males. Therefore do not allow them to supervise young males.

Pedophiles prey on children, they can be gay, straight, or bisexual. Being attracted to children has NOTHING to do with sexual orientation.

[autiger4life 3]

And by law, those straight men are considered pedophiles. It is the same reason why men are not considered a good choice to take girl scouts out in the woods. Normal men are attracted to females. Therefore do not allow men to supervise females. In the same vein, abnormal, sick, weird men are attracted to males. Therefore do not allow them to supervise young males.

Being attracted to females and being attracted to female children is completely different. I am attracted to females, but in now way female children.

Is that to say that my mother shouldn't have let a female babysitter stay with me? I don't think so.

[Tigermike 3,041]

And by law, those straight men are considered pedophiles. It is the same reason why men are not considered a good choice to take girl scouts out in the woods. Normal men are attracted to females. Therefore do not allow men to supervise females. In the same vein, abnormal, sick, weird men are attracted to males. Therefore do not allow them to supervise young males.

Being attracted to females and being attracted to female children is completely different. I am attracted to females, but in now way female children.

Is that to say that my mother shouldn't have let a female babysitter stay with me? I don't think so.

I think your mother would be mad that the baby sitter let you stay up so late.

[CCTAU 3,336]

I do have a hard time believing that the percentage of gay men that pay for young prostitutes is higher than straight men who pay for young female prostitutes.

And by law, those straight men are considered pedophiles. It is the same reason why men are not considered a good choice to take girl scouts out in the woods. Normal men are attracted to females. Therefore do not allow men to supervise females. In the same vein, abnormal, sick, weird men are attracted to males. Therefore do not allow them to supervise young males.

Pedophiles prey on children, they can be gay, straight, or bisexual. Being attracted to children has NOTHING to do with sexual orientation.

You go ahead and invest in that gay childcare business and see how well it works out for you.

[Tiger Al 0]

It is the same reason why men are not considered a good choice to take girl scouts out in the woods. Normal men are attracted to females. Therefore do not allow men to supervise females.

Are you saying that you are unable to control any urges that you have? When your daughter has friends sleep over do you hang out in the hallway hoping that one of them gets up to go to the bathroom so you can hit on her? Do the other parents know that you can't be trusted?

[CCTAU 3,336]

It is the same reason why men are not considered a good choice to take girl scouts out in the woods. Normal men are attracted to females. Therefore do not allow men to supervise females.

Are you saying that you are unable to control any urges that you have? When your daughter has friends sleep over do you hang out in the hallway hoping that one of them gets up to go to the bathroom so you can hit on her? Do the other parents know that you can't be trusted?

Yeah, that's it. You caught me. As a parent, if you do not scrutinize who your children are staying with, then don't bitch if something happens to them. As a man, I would not want to be left alone in a house full of girls. Too many things could happen that are not even real but just one accusation is all it takes to ruin a life. That's why I have a wife. We do things as a normal balanced family. That does not mean there aren't any warped people out there. But I would not allow my children to be kept by a gay man. Sorry that I don't fit your dimwitted all loving view of the world. But I tend to err on the side of caution. You and channonc can invest together.

BTW. I don't allow my children to be kept by young men either.

[Tiger Al 0]

It is the same reason why men are not considered a good choice to take girl scouts out in the woods. Normal men are attracted to females. Therefore do not allow men to supervise females.

Are you saying that you are unable to control any urges that you have? When your daughter has friends sleep over do you hang out in the hallway hoping that one of them gets up to go to the bathroom so you can hit on her? Do the other parents know that you can't be trusted?

Yeah, that's it. You caught me. As a parent, if you do not scrutinize who your children are staying with, then don't bitch if something happens to them. As a man, I would not want to be left alone in a house full of girls. Too many things could happen that are not even real but just one accusation is all it takes to ruin a life. That's why I have a wife. We do things as a normal balanced family. That does not mean there aren't any warped people out there. But I would not allow my children to be kept by a gay man. Sorry that I don't fit your dimwitted all loving view of the world. But I tend to err on the side of caution. You and channonc can invest together.

BTW. I don't allow my children to be kept by young men either.

So, what is it that makes a homosexual more likely to molest a child than a heterosexual, in your opinion?

[autiger4life 3]

Yeah, that's it. You caught me. As a parent, if you do not scrutinize who your children are staying with, then don't bitch if something happens to them. As a man, I would not want to be left alone in a house full of girls. Too many things could happen that are not even real but just one accusation is all it takes to ruin a life. That's why I have a wife. We do things as a normal balanced family. That does not mean there aren't any warped people out there. But I would not allow my children to be kept by a gay man. Sorry that I don't fit your dimwitted all loving view of the world. But I tend to err on the side of caution. You and channonc can invest together.

Really, does your wife know that that is the reason you married her. Just kidding, but on a serious note, you wouldn't let you daughter stay with a friend who has a forty year old dad?