Lion of the Blogosphere

Gay Boy Scout leaders

I guess the reason why one wouldn’t want gay scout leaders is the same reason you don’t want heterosexual men leading girl scouts.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

July 15, 2015 at 10:33 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

42 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I’ve used this argument before, and the proponents of gay scout leaders always tell me that fathers ARE involved in the Girl Scouts.

    Stealth

    July 15, 2015 at 10:40 pm

  2. Scout leaders should be gay when it’s appropriate and serious at other times. But no way should sodomites go on camping trips with 11- to 15-year-old boys — science has well established that sodomites are most aroused by boys on the cusp of puberty, about age 11 to 14 — that age range is their sexual ideal.

    DEATH TO AMERICA

    porkyboy

    July 15, 2015 at 11:56 pm

  3. Every heterosexual man is automatically suspect when it comes to being around children. However, it’s homophobia to be suspicious of gays. And if you disagree then you’re a HATER!

    destructure

    July 16, 2015 at 12:04 am

    • That’s excellent. Mind if I use it?

      CamelCaseRob

      July 16, 2015 at 12:45 pm

      • Go ahead. The last line was borrowed from Greg Gutfeld who hosted “Red Eye”. He’d begin every show with a “Greg-alogue” in which he would opine on something then finish off by saying “And if you disagree with me then you, sir, are probably a RACIST!”

        destructure

        July 16, 2015 at 6:49 pm

  4. Or heterosexual women leading boy scouts. Russia and Putin are so awesome to keep this epidemic of corruption and moral degeneration in check.

    Yakov

    July 16, 2015 at 12:33 am

    • Great intelligence from Putin. Intelligent discussion on this does not occur in the west. Just blackout of conversation and dialog.

      Dan

      July 16, 2015 at 8:52 am

  5. An interesting take:

    Yakov

    July 16, 2015 at 12:43 am

  6. Not all pedophiles are homosexuals but all homosexual pedophiles are homosexual.

    I thought the reasoning was obvious.

    Nathan Wartooth

    July 16, 2015 at 2:06 am

    • Well possibly a guy could get a hard-on from young boys but still be married to a woman.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      July 16, 2015 at 8:20 am

      • Then he’s bi.

        dsgntd_plyr

        July 16, 2015 at 6:10 pm

      • Closet case, then. Because gay men have never availed themselves of a beard.

        Half Canadian

        July 16, 2015 at 6:15 pm

      • Half Canadian — Our family knew a widower who was married for 45 years and had several children. About 5 years ago he was caught diddling with a 13yr old boy. We actually saw him with another guy in a parked car one time. So we knew he was a closet case but never outed him. He was already married when we met him. So we didn’t see much point in outing him to his wife and disrupting the children’s lives. Maybe she already knew?

        Of course, there’s Caitlin who was married 3 times and had 5 children. Does anyone really think he just woke up one morning when he was 65 and realized he was a flaming knob jockey? I can think of few things worse than marrying someone under false pretenses. Then suddenly when they’re 50 and the youngest kid graduates high school — SURPRISE! If they told their spouse upfront that’s one thing. But to ruin another person’s life is evil.

        destructure

        July 16, 2015 at 8:46 pm

  7. According to Jayman, homosexuality is caused by parasites, which explains why so many people are homophobic…they are simply germophobic and don’t want to be colonized by some weird spirochete or other that, probably as part of it’s spread, causes males to want to fuck other men in the ass…spreading the pathogen further. Gays= bad hygiene = prole.

    Sorry I got off topic there, but anyone who thinks letting children hang around men who like to anally penetrate other men, is mentally ill. It is a known fact that the majority of pedophiles are gay (adult men sleeping with young boys), far out of proportion to their numbers.

    The triumph of the gays has lead to the utter destruction of male bonding. In olden times when sodomy lead to the death penalty and things like that, men had no compunction against writing letters to each other, or holding hands walking down the street, or even living together and sleeping in the same bed. A lot of people think there are gay undertones to Frodo and Sam in the Lord of The Rings, when they don’t understand that in Tolkien’s time…practically in living memory, homosexuality was so verboten that men could express themselves in this way.

    jjbees

    July 16, 2015 at 3:07 am

    • I think that gayness can be adequately explained by the interaction of environment and evolutionary-stable recessive genes that predispose one towards homosexuality.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      July 16, 2015 at 8:22 am

      • If Moses commanded us to try and execute gays, then it cannot be just some genetic predisposition or bug infection, it must be because they are evil. I mean, why should you kill a chap because he’s got a bug messing him up? Moses would never do this, also I don’t think that Moses even knew about this type of bugs or genetics. So it must be because they are evil. Now, it’s possible that all these freakazoids are so numerous now because there is actually a bug or genetics are no good, but the ones Moses knew were evil, that’s for sure. Moses never commanded to out anyone, so I think if they were to stay in the closet and quietly do their thing it would be OK, but they don’t. Personally, I think most of them are mental, some are pretty functional, though. They need to be closely controlled because they are dangerous, very dangerous.

        Yakov

        July 16, 2015 at 9:43 pm

      • Low heritability alone (75% of the time the other is straight.

        Further, there is no potential fitness upside to being gay that could cause any such putative genes to stick around.

        JayMan

        July 16, 2015 at 10:56 pm

      • Nope–no “stable recessive genes” have anything to do with homosexuality. Read Cochran’s post at West Hunter on the subject or Jayman’s. The research that has NEVER found what you suggest. The concordance of monozygotic twins is ONLY 20% and that is from the biggest twin registry and study ever. (the old 50-50 number is just that–old with small sample size.)

        m.g.

        July 16, 2015 at 11:30 pm

      • I don’t agree with the *recessive* genes hypothesis, but I’m still in awe of the inanity of the gay pathogen hypothesis. Given that it’s utterly stupid to presume that the *same* pathogen can create gynephilia in females (i.e. lesbianism) and androphilia in males (i.e. gayness), it follows that the gay pathogen hypothesis only explains male homosexuality -or- that there are two separate pathogen hypotheses for both forms of homosexuality. The question that immediately follows is whether the gay male pathogen can also create androphilia in females (i.e. female heterosexuality) [and also whether the lesbian female pathogen can also create male heterosexuality]. One can then cogitate on the possibility for this pathogen to perhaps be a viral element, perhaps a virus that has found its way into the human genome. Perhaps, maybe… a gene.

        My preferred hypothesis starts with the observation that just like the undifferentiated embryo can produce either a penis or a clitoris, the undifferentiated embryo can also produce either androphilia or gynephilia. All you need to explain homosexuality at that point is that there exist a less than 100% fidelity in XY -> penis, gynephilia ; XX -> clitoris, androphilia. (Since someone with XY, female genitalia, and gynephilia would be a homosexual, not a heterosexual, because these terms refer to sexuality mismatch to genitalia, not sexuality mismatch to karyotype.) Given the occurrence of failure in XY -> penis and XX -> clitoris which occurs about .1% of the time (http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency), and given that homosexuality damages fitness MUCH less than intersexuality, and given that genetic factors are probably less deterministic on neural tissue than other kinds of tissue, it follows that homosexuality should be much more common than .1%.

        Finally, the gay pathogen could only possibly function by co-opting the development of the andro/gynephilia systems (because male androphilia is the essentially same thing as female androphilia). That is, all of the machinery that my explanation needs is also needed in the gay pathogen explanation, along with the extra machinery of a pathogen. One is reminded not to multiply entities beyond necessity.

        Finally [again], my explanation can easily be adjusted to explain transsexuality and all other varieties of female traits occurring in ostensibly male bodies and of male traits occurring in ostensibly female bodies. The pathogen hypothesis is not thus adjustable (at least not without further multiplying entities). The fundamental point is that the human genome is already in a state of being capable of producing the full breadth of both female and male characteristics, and it’s a clear violation of Occam’s razor to assert that it is not the human genome, but rather some external pathogen, that on its own creates these female and male characteristics in a certain subset of human bodies.

        Sebastian Zearing

        July 17, 2015 at 8:29 pm

    • @jjbees

      Very true. My Greek friend and i used to walk with our hands on each other’s shoulder when going for lunch. People thought us weird and it got worth since than. Once I hired a new British guy, so this guy was sitting in my friends office and I walk in, lean on my friends back, ruffle his hair, sniff him out and go like: ‘Man, you smell so good! What did you put in your hair, man’. You should’ve seen that Brit! I guess he had never seen anything like this at a major Wall Street firm. But I miss that physical contact that we used to have. Everything is very cold nowadays. I wonder how thing are in Greece and Italy, are male relationships also messed up?

      Yakov

      July 16, 2015 at 1:17 pm

    • The triumph of the gays has lead to the utter destruction of male bonding.

      I’ve brought this up as a cost of LGBT acceptance. Straight men don’t hang-out they way they used, or do things like dance in public, or care about their appearance, because those things are now “gay.”

      Related. The rise of man-caves is a direct result of LGBT acceptance, and Feminists getting the government to attack male-only spaces (Augusta National).

      dsgntd_plyr

      July 16, 2015 at 6:14 pm

    • To Sebastian Zearing–

      No one has said that what causes homosexuality in men is what causes lesbianism. In fact, the originator f the pathogen hypothesis has always declared that lesbianism appears not to carry the fitness cost that male homosex does.

      m.g.

      July 17, 2015 at 9:52 pm

  8. Perhaps a suitable image to those concerned with straight men in education would be to envision the homo teacher as a straight man without sexual inhibitions who has indulged himself in degeneracy since an early age, likely including sex with minors. Because that’s what he is. Is that a suitable contact for children or youths? (The lesbian case is similar.)

    In loco parentis has been reduced to just loco.

    Glengarry

    July 16, 2015 at 4:43 am

    • Yeah, I voted against having gay scouts partly because I knew that it would cause many really great leaders to leave. Okay, so now they have left, so it is time to “vote” again. Well the votes against are not there, so the ayes will have it. Do you think they knew that in advance from their experience in Canada? I bet they did. My older son is almost an Eagle Scout. He will finish and then we’ll find a different activity group for my little nine year old to join.

      Personally, I think that the vote was rigged. I don’t believe a majority of parents in Scouting voted for gays to be allowed in. Any kid who is out and proud aka openly gay before age 18 is a bad actor.

      not too late

      July 16, 2015 at 10:46 am

  9. The Catholic Church scandal was about homosexual priests seducing teenage altar boys.

    bob sykes

    July 16, 2015 at 7:58 am

    • It’s funny how men seducing boys was only seen as “bad” by the media because it was a roundabout way of bashing the Catholic Church.

      peterike

      July 16, 2015 at 9:46 am

      • Exactly. And now that the pope is a leftist pope the media has found religion and forgotten all about it. The media doesn’t really have a problem with pedophilia. Hollywood loves it. They defended Roman Polanski

        destructure

        July 16, 2015 at 2:03 pm

    • And the subsequent coverup by other homo priests. Let’s all just focus on the “Catholic” part, shall we?

      Glengarry

      July 16, 2015 at 12:12 pm

  10. The Boy Scouts were among the first youth organizations to establish rules, called Two Deep, which prohibit one on one contact between adults and youths. These rules cover just about all the situations which can arise during Scouting activities and give examples of what can and cannot be done.

    Peter

    ironrailsironweights

    July 16, 2015 at 10:09 am

    • Yeah, I have done that training. It’s good, but I am still not letting my son go with a gay dude even if there is another gay dude with him to make sure nothing happens.

      not too late

      July 16, 2015 at 10:50 am

      • he can get his spit roasting badge.

        double entendre!

        jjbees

        July 16, 2015 at 1:18 pm

    • “Two Deep”

      Well, the name’s appropriate.

      Random Black Guy

      July 16, 2015 at 11:53 am

    • Two Deep? Too easy. The joke writes itself.

      dsgntd_plyr

      July 16, 2015 at 6:17 pm

  11. The problem with this argument is that if you claim society should take common-sense measures to minimize the occurrence of undesirable heterosexual contact, our cultural betters furiously accuse you of “victim-blaming,” having a “boys will be boys” attitude, etc.

    Hermes

    July 16, 2015 at 11:48 am

  12. Agree with Peter. I think scouts has mostly addressed the abuse risk:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youth_Protection_program_(Boy_Scouts_of_America)

    Basically leaders can’t be alone one-on-one with the boys, don’t share tents with kids, don’t see them changing… strict stuff.

    Its a pretty low-trust situation, but it works. The kids that lose out are groups with low parental involvement, because obviously you need more dads around to avoid one-on-one stuff. You can’t have one scout leader taking a group of inner-city kids camping because that would break the rules.

    Dan

    July 16, 2015 at 12:38 pm

    • BSA does have women leaders, too. Many do support type stuff that is admin, and others go because they need drivers to the event, etc. Would anyone be scared of a lesbian with boy scouts? I mean, I wouldn’t. It is the out and proud crap that I object to in a case like that. Unlike Girl Scouts, there is no discussion of sex in Boy Scouts. I just don’t want any innuendo etc., or disrespect of the leaders. Most of the boys are not going to be comfortable with a gay leader and the point of the organization is to be there for the benefit of the boys.

      not too late

      July 16, 2015 at 9:23 pm

  13. Question. How will us non-crazy people warning about pedophilia be blamed for the rapes that go public in 2019-2025?

    I know SJWs will spin it that homophobia caused the rapes, but I’m just not sure how they’ll spin it (see the blaming of whites that left urban cores for the plight of blacks for an example of what i’m talking about).

    dsgntd_plyr

    July 16, 2015 at 6:09 pm

  14. Regardless of the risks mentioned above, I wouldn’t want to have a gay man, or even a merely effeminate man, as a role model for my sons.

    Prole

    July 16, 2015 at 9:02 pm

  15. there’s no normalizing sodomy.

    if you like cock, get a pussy. if you like pussy get a cock.

    …but you can’t…quelle dommage. muslim rage!!!

    nature is a bitch.

    krupp sphere

    July 16, 2015 at 9:38 pm

    • are you shitting me? Get out of here with that swastika you ingrate.

      Bar_Back

      July 16, 2015 at 11:44 pm

  16. “Regardless of the risks mentioned above, I wouldn’t want to have a gay man, or even a merely effeminate man, as a role model for my sons.”

    This.

    Lion’s original argument (“I guess the reason why one wouldn’t want gay scout leaders is the same reason you don’t want heterosexual men leading girl scouts.”) is a popular strawman. Its essentially saying ‘no gay scout leaders because they might rape kids’. And while it is possible, it is not the real argument.

    The real argument is above. The whole point of scouting is to train boys to become men. That training takes many forms: how to build a fire, set up a tent, walk in the woods. These are the trivial forms. The important forms are elsewhere: how to take responsibility, how to get along with other boys/men in stressful situations, how to plan (a campout), how to work as a team, how to set and achieve goals (mile swim; continue hiking when its raining and you’re tired, and so on).

    And finally, how to be and talk and act like a healthy and honorable man. Gay men aren’t that and don’t do that. They are not good role models for boys because it would be unhealthy for boys to emulate their behavior, mannerisms, dress, values, speech, and so on.

    I was looking forward to boy scouts with my own son. Not anymore.

    anonymousse

    anonymousse

    July 17, 2015 at 8:25 am


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: