Defending the Boy Scouts, Part II

I got this Norman Rockwell painting on a
magnet as a reminder of the day
I got to pin the Eagle badge on my son.

In the last post I made the assertion that those pressuring to change the Boy Scouts of America rules to allow active homosexuals as leaders and members have a real agenda of wanting to destroy the Boy Scouts. They don’t want to join them; they want them not to exist. This post offers evidence.

This isn’t going to be pretty. It involves talking math, and unfortunately also discussion of pedophilia. My apologies. There are also footnotes worth following. (If you look up the references, some of them will lead to additional references, which I do not list.)

The number of children who undergo molestation is not precisely known, but can be estimated, as has been done in a number of studies. Logic tells us there are four combinations possible: male molester/female child victim; female molester/female child victim; male molester/male child victim; female molester/male child victim. For our question about the Boy Scouts, we can delete female victims for both male and female predators, simply because girls don’t belong to the Boy Scouts.[i]

Homosexuals make up about 1.5% of the population, according to careful research. Frequently this number is cited as 3%. The homosexual community often makes the unsupported claim that they make up 10% of the population. Some of the data I’m about to present uses the generous percentage of 2%. So, using that compromise, we can logically assume that heterosexual molestation comes from the 98% of heterosexual population. Same-sex molestation, therefore, comes from 2% of the population.

About 17% of young men in America are sexually abused before adulthood. Only a small percentage of these are female molester/male victim cases. For comparison, some estimates are that one in four girls (25%) will be molested (which goes up to one in three for females during their lifetime), the vast majority are male molester/female victim cases—in other words, coming from the 98% heterosexual population. The male abuser/male victim cases, then, come from the 2% of the population that are homosexual.

Note that the data does not imply that all homosexuals are predators; that is certainly not the case. However, the risk of someone in that demographic being a predator is much much higher than in the population at large. And at this point we don’t have a way for a “safe” homosexual to certify that they are one of the harmless ones.

Here are a couple of summaries from those who have done the math. This first one is from Steve Baldwin in “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement”[ii] :

Family Research Institute founder and psychologist Paul Cameron, reviewing more than nineteen different academic reports and peer reviewed studies in a 1985 Psychological Reports article, found that homosexuals account for between 25% and 40% of all child molestation. Sex researhers Freund, Heasman, Racansky, and Glancy, for example, in a 1984 Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy article, put the number at 36%. Erickson, Walbek, Sely, in a 1988 Archives of Sexual Behavior article, places it at 86% when the children being molested are male.

However, it should be noted that homosexuals account for only 2% of the population which statistically means that a child molester is ten to twenty times more likely to be homosexual than heterosexual. In other words, heterosexual molestations proportionally are a fraction compared to homosexual molestations. More recent studies confirm this statistic. In 2000, the Archives of Sexual Behavior published an article by seven sex researchers concluding that ‘‘around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles."

There are additional versions of the research. One study by homosexual activists and researchers revealed that 73% of homosexuals surveyed had sex with boys sixteen to nineteen years of age or younger.[iii] Additional studies compare female and male targets as well as homosexual vs. heterosexual predators, such as this one: “Child molestation, by comparison, was a relatively infrequent crime occurring from an average of 23.2 times by a pedophile (nonincest) with female targets to an average of 281.7 times by a pedophile (nonincest) whose targets were males.”[iv]

Baldwin makes specific references to pedophilia infiltration within the Boy Scouts:

When a California family sued the Scouts in 1993 for exposing their son to a Scout leader who molested him, the Scouts were ordered to turn over 25,000 pages of documents to the plaintiff.  This unprecedented glimpse into the world of Scout pedophiles revealed that thousands of boys had been molested by Scout leaders and other volunteers between 1971 and 1991 resulting in the expulsion of over 1,800 Scout volunteers for pedophile activity. The documents show that some Scout leaders molested over forty boys before getting caught, and that many, once caught, simply moved to a different Scout troop and continued abusing boys.

Gay activists have spun the Scout molestation epidemic as a heterosexual problem. Examination of many of the higher profile cases, however, reveals that Scout molesters are attracted exclusively to boys and many lead mainstream gay lifestyles. John Hemstreet is a typical example. Hemstreet is a convicted child molester, former Boy Scout leader, and currently the President of the Toledo, Ohio, chapter of Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG). PFLAG is one of the groups leading the nationwide attack on the Boy Scouts of America.

Incredibly, the pro-pedophile group North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), which calls itself a homosexual group, wrote a letter to the national Scout office urging “the Boy Scouts of America to cease its discrimination against openly gay or lesbian persons in the appointment of its scout masters and its scouters and in its membership. This will permit scouts to be exposed to a variety of life styles and will permit more of those individuals who genuinely wish to serve boys to do so.”

NAMBLA used to make even other homosexual groups uncomfortable. But in the last couple of decades they have been embraced as part of the movement. You will find them represented at any gay parade or bookstore; they have been mainstreamed. NAMBLA has actually published information instructing pedophiles on how to become Boy Scout leaders, and other ways to profile, lure, befriend, and rape a child, then avoid detection and prosecution.[v]

People who think the argument is about eliminating discrimination against a harmless, helpful segment of the population are being duped.

Boy Scouts of America (BSA) has responded by improving and increasing sexual molestation prevention training; I have been through it, more than once. Even volunteers at a Cub Scout day camp must have received the training and must abide by safety policies, such as two-deep leadership.

I know in Scout troops we have been involved in, sponsored by our church (and Latter-day Saints sponsor more troops in the US than any other sponsor), do not allow youth to be led by anyone of any sexual orientation that engages in sex outside of marriage. There is no discrimination against a segment of the population; there is discrimination against behaviors that do not qualify as moral to religious people. And the Boy Scouts is a tool for raising boys into moral men. It is not the only such tool, but it has been a good one.

If the Boy Scouts fail to remain true to their long stated mission, they will be less useful as a tool. If they stand strong, they may lose funding because of the pressure from the homosexual community on donating corporations. If the Boy Scouts give in, they may lose sponsorship by most of their individual troop sponsors. (I can’t say for certain that will happen, or when, but it does appear to me to be a likely eventuality.[vi])

What I can say for certain is that allowing homosexual leadership will have two certain outcomes: First, teaching boys to be “morally straight,” i.e., sexually pure, will be more difficult. Second, more boys will be exposed to the risk of sexual predators. Resisting the pro-homosexual pressure is the only way for the the Boy Scouts to meet their mission for boys.

---

[i] In some Explorer level troops, girls do participate. The number is so small compared to the general population of the Boy Scouts that I do not include them in the equation. Likewise, there are women leaders, in Cub Scouts as well as some peripheral leadership positions in regular Scout troops, but not as Scout Masters, and never as leadership during overnight activities without male leadership present. So, while female predators cannot be 100% eliminated, they are clearly not part of the question about allowing homosexual leaders. 

 

[ii] See Baldwin, Steve, “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement” and associated notes: http://mail.famguardian.org/Subjects/SexualImmorality/Pedophilia/14_2baldwin.pdf

 

[iii] K. Jay et al, The Gay Report:  Lesbians and Gays Speak Out About Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles 275 (1979).

 

[iv] Eugene Abel et al., “Self-Reported Sex Crimes of Nonincarcerated Pedophiliacs, 2 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 3, 5 (1987). See also R. Blanchard et al, “Fraternal Order and Sexual Orientation in Pedophiles,” 29 Archives Sexual Behav. 464 (2000); K. Freund & R I. Watson, “The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children:  An Exploratory Study,” 18 Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy 34, 34-43 (1992).

 

[v] Jeffery Curley, age 10, was raped and murdered Oct. 1 1997. The perpetrators had in their possession NAMBLA materials, as well as a book, “Rape and Escape,” published by NAMBLA. They used an idea from the NAMBLA materials to lure the boy. The family sued NAMBLA for its contribution to the murder of their son; the ACLU defended NAMBLA pro bono, claiming NAMBLA has 1^st amendment rights to free speech; ironically, the ACLU requested a gag order against the prosecution and asked for witnesses who testified in the Curley case concerning the NAMBLA information to be disallowed.

 

[vi] http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-cautions-against-speculation-on-scouting-decision.

Defending the Boy Scouts, Part I

Last week the national leaders of Boy Scouts of America considered whether to alter their long-standing position to exclude those involved in homosexual behavior from leadership and membership. The decision was put off until a future meeting in May.

When it came up, I was a little surprised. The fight against the Scouts has been quiet for some years, since a 2000 Supreme Court ruling in their favor, that a private organization is allowed to exclude a person from membership when “the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoints,” a right validated through the Constitution’s First Amendment freedom of assembly clause.

I wasn’t aware of the most recent pressure—which is purportedly to eliminate discrimination but in reality is intended to destroy the organization. I’m a little late for writing about last Wednesday’s vote, but I’m ahead of time for the May vote.

The method of pressure is to remove a large percentage of business donations, which have helped the organization function as a non-profit for over a century. The discrimination argument, while it may appeal to surface-thinkers, means that an organization—any organization—must be what outsiders, rather than members, say it must be. This may be better understood with a comparison. 

T-shirt from Rudy's Barbecue in Houston, TX

A favorite restaurant feature here in Texas is the barbecue place. I don’t know what this means elsewhere, but here it means slow-cooked smoked brisket and pulled pork, sliced up and weighed in front of you, and handed to you in paper dishes that you carry to seat-yourself trestle tables, where you lay it out on sheets of paper you tore off as your own personal tablecloth. There are no plates. Plastic forks and knives are optional. Typically you put the meat of choice on slices of bread and pour on some secret recipe barbecue sauce. Our family’s favorite such place is Rudy’s, which is set up like a truck-stop gas station with the restaurant instead of a mini-mart. The sauce (regular Rudy’s Sause and Sissy Sause varieties) are so good that extended family members request that we ship it to them as Christmas gifts. Rudy’s sells T-shirts that say, “I didn’t claw my way to the top of the food chain to eat vegetables.”

In other words, this is a place with a certain belief and lifestyle.

Suppose someone comes in and sees the success of Rudy’s and wants to expand. It’s a chain, so it’s conceivable someone could want to have the opportunity to manage a new franchise. But suppose this potential new manager has a different philosophy: “I like everything you do here at Rudy’s; it really works. And clearly it’s profitable. I want all that. But I’m really troubled by all this death to animals. I think we need a kinder, gentler Rudy’s that caters to the vegetarian Texan.”

I expect the head honchos at Rudy’s would laugh in the guy's face and say "No; that isn’t possible. You can’t successfully feed people Texas barbecue without meat."

Suppose, in our hypothetical, there’s some pressure put on the organization by PETA; protesters come and picket in front of the restaurants and harass customers, discouraging the usual customers from going inside and spending their money on the meat they want. What should Rudy’s do?

Well, for one thing, stay in Texas, where meat eaters are likely to scoff at the protesters and go get their meat anyway. So loss of funding doesn’t translate as well to this metaphor. But let’s take a look at the motives of the change agents. They claim to admire the success of the original organization. They want to continue the success—but they want to take away the main reason for the success: really good meat served up pure and simple.

That’s what’s happening with the Boy Scouts. People outside the organization say they admire the outcome, the building of boys into men of strong morals and integrity. They want to keep getting that result—except that, instead of all that emphasis on morality and integrity, they want to emphasize “tolerance,” particularly tolerance of sexual immorality, instead.

You can’t have a successful barbecued meat restaurant by insisting that the eating of meat is immoral. You can’t have a successful organization to help parents raise boys to moral men by insisting that having a standard of sexual morality is immoral.

You know that if Rudy’s were to give in to the vegetarian potential manager, the business would fail. That is a given. Also know that, if the Boy Scouts were to cave and accept homosexual behavior as equivalent to married heterosexual behavior, the Boy Scouts would fail in their mission. That is also a given.

The simple question for the change pushers is this: why don’t you form your own organization that appeals to those who share your beliefs? Why walk into an organization you don’t share beliefs with and insist they adjust to your beliefs?

The real answer to that is that they do not simply want to slightly adjust an existing organization, which they believe would be an improvement for all the world; they want to destroy that organization. Not everyone has that ultimate goal. Some are simply listening to the talking points and following along with the crowd. But if you look at the requirements for civilization, and you look at the adherence to those civilizing principles within the organization, you can identify where BSA lands on the Spherical Model. People who dwell only in the southern hemisphere of the spherical model choose control of others, and they choose savagery. They do no love civilization, so there is no reason to assume their motives are pure.

In Part II we’ll look at the evidence that leads to this conclusion.