Skip to comments.Obama: An Enemy Of Boy Scouts
Posted on 01/26/2009 5:03:57 AM PST by IbJensen
Boy Scout Troop 358, one of the oldest African-American troops in the county, participated in history as it marched in the Inaugural Parade in Washington, D.C. as the first African-American became President of the United States.
Truly an honor for any Scout troop, however have the leaders of this troop taken a close look at an issue that will directly affect the very existence of Boy Scouting in America? The American Family Association of Pennsylvania (AFA of PA), a statewide family group, is questioning whether they realize President Barack Obama supports the very policies that are targeting their headquarters in Philadelphia.
Troop 358 is part of the Cradle of Liberty Scout Council, which has been in a pitched battle with the City of Philadelphia to retain the headquarters they built and have maintained since 1929 on property the 1928 City Council gave the Scouts free use of in perpetuity or forever.
Last May, the Cradle of Liberty Scout Council sued the city to prevent their eviction. That case was given a green light to proceed by a judge last fall, remarked Diane Gramley, president of the AFA of PA.
Why is the City of Philadelphia seeking to evict the Scouts? It is because of their ban on allowing open homosexual leaders and members.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Scouts have the right, as a private organization, to choose who they want to be leaders and members. Ever since that time they have been targeted by homosexual organizations and activists who are trying to remold the Boy Scouts of America in their image.
In 1983 Philadelphia added sexual orientation to its Fair Practices Ordinance. Two decades later, under pressure from homosexual groups, the attack against the Scouts began.
Pressure on the Cradle of Liberty Scout Council, one of the largest in the nation serving more than 69,000 youth, has been intense over the past six years as they lost hundreds of thousands of dollars of support from Pew Charitable Trust and Southeastern Pennsylvania United Way, in addition to the threat of eviction.
Yes, it is a great honor to be part of the inaugural parade, but at what costs? Do these Boy Scout leaders fully realize that President Obama supports a wide range of so-called gay rights measures. He has said he will use the Office of President as a bully pulpit to advance their causes.
Mr. Obama, knowingly or unknowingly, may be a part of the end of the Boy Scouts of America as we know them, Ms. Gramley further stated.
And Gypsies, Poles and Jews too? Psst - it's been tried before. Caused all sorts of trouble.
Oh, I get it. Comparing the quarantining of our valuable perverts to Nazi concentration camps.
How about we go after the pedophiles who are the real threat in this situation instead of just painting everyone with a broad brush?
When you suggest refraining from 'painting everyone with a broad brush' you ignore some basic facts about homosexual activity.
Homosexuals head the list of serial killers.
Homosexuals spread disease by their untidy actions during their so-called 'love-making' sessions in that they ingest fecal matter and are apt to 'score' with multiple partners.
The imbecilic attempt to legitimize thereby making a mockery of marriage is anathema to a well-ordered society. Homosexuals tend to flit from partner to partner and no piece of paper is going to stop that.
I believe that homosexuals and their agenda for this nation and the world is as dangerous as terrorists. Damage after terror attacks can be repaired. The damage homosexuals do eats into the moral fiber of America and will last until the Second Coming unless it is curbed once and for all.
“All homosexuals are potential pedophiles. “
Pure bologna. The vast majority of homosexuals have no interest in underage persons. Where do you get this idea that ALL homosexuals are potential pedophiles? I have never heard that argument before, so I’m curious what you base this claim on.
An ox is gored.
List if you want it.
NinoFan, homosexuals who are not pushing the homosexual agenda are welcome on FR. But your support of the homosexual agenda is not welcome at all. If you want to make false assertions such as the above, you must cite sources to support it. But, since you won’t be able to, you should shut your trap.
I have noted that your comments are generally polite and do not incite rudeness. But I am sick of your support of the homosexual agenda and its lies. It is a lie that homosexuals in general are not interested in underage males. I used to run the Homosexual Agenda pinglist and still help out. I used to have (thanks to Scripter especially) tons of links, sources and facts and figures - many from homosexual researchers and sites - that support the FACT that homosexuals are more prone to molest and seduce underage youths.
I don’t have those links and sources at my fingertips right now due to various reasons including three computer deaths. Maybe someone will show up with some facts. But I don’t need any links to know for a fact - due to studying this topic for years - that your assertion is a rotten lie and I will hit abuse on you if I see any more support of the homosexual agenda coming from you.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Have you read that disgusting poem 0bama wrote about the stains on the shorts? (gag)
PING - Obama enemy of the Boy scouts.
Excuse me, your bullying will not work on me. You do not get to say what I can or cannot discuss here on FR.
I have been more than careful to follow the rules. I have been a good member here for only a little less time than you have. I have donated significantly to this site. Being that I have posted frequently in support of conservative causes, my credentials here are not in doubt. And if they are in doubt, you are certainly not the one who gets to second guess them.
As for my “support of the homosexual agenda”, I have made clear that I do not support activist judges. Debate over gay issues should be for the voters, not for tyrants in black. The threads I comment on are those where people get out of hand the other way. It’s an extreme position to say that all homosexuals are potential pedophiles and when people say such extreme things, they should expect people to respond.
But know this, since you threatened me, if you choose to harass me, I’ll be forced to hit abuse on you as well.
Oh, and cholerajoe, thought you might be interested in getting in on this discussion, since it seems he’s pinged his FRiends, I thought I’d invite you to join in.
I only pinged wagglebee becauase he does most of the pinging lately. And Scripter, although he’s not here much, because he’s got links and sources.
JR says on FR’s home page that he does not want FR supporting the homosexual agenda. I’m not bullying you, just telling you that if I see any posts in which you support the homosexual agenda, I will hit abuse. Since I don’t support the homosexual agenda or any liberal or leftist causes, I don’t think you’ll find any reason to hit abuse on me.
You hit abuse on me when you feel it necessary, and I will do the same on you when I feel it is necessary. We’ve made our positions perfectly clear in this matter, so any further discussion at this time would just be us letting anger get the best of us (and we’re both better than that).
Have a good afternoon.
Actually, it has never been scientifically proven that homosexual adults are any more likely to molest children than heterosexual adults. Most pedophiles cannot be accurately described as either heterosexual or homosexual, since they are usually incapable of having a healthy sexual relationship with an adult of either sex.
Here are six scientific references I found in a brief search of the medical literature: (Oh and before you go calling me names, too, I'm a physician, and a confirmed heterosexual with a strong preference for adult women.)
Freund et al. (1989). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and erotic age preference. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 107-117.
This article is discussed above in the "Other Approaches" section. As the FRC concedes, it contradicts their argument. The abstract summarizes the authors' conclusion: "Findings indicate that homosexual males who preferred mature partners responded no more to male children than heterosexual males who preferred mature partners responded to female children."
The FRC cites this study to challenge the Freund et al. data (see the previous paper above). However, the methodologies were quite different. Freund and his colleagues used a sample that included sex offenders and they assessed sexual arousal with a physiological measure similar to that described below for the 1988 Marshall et al. study. Silverthorne and Quinsey used a sample of community volunteers who were asked to view pictures of human faces and use a 7-point scale to rate their sexual attractiveness. The apparent ages of the people portrayed in the pictures was originally estimated by Dr. Silverthorne to range from 15 to 50. However, a group of independent raters perceived the male faces to range in age from 18 to 58, and the female faces to range from 19 to 60.
The article doesn't report the data in great detail (e.g., average ratings are depicted only in a graphic; the actual numbers aren't reported) and the authors provide contradictory information about the rating scale (they describe it as a 7-point scale but also say it ranged from 0 to 7, which constitutes an 8-point scale). In either case, it appears that none of the pictures was rated as "very sexually attractive" (a rating of 7). Rather, the highest average ratings were approximately 5.
On average, gay men rated the 18-year old male faces the most attractive (average rating = about 5), with attractiveness ratings declining steadily for older faces. They rated the 58-year old male faces 2, on average. By contrast, heterosexual men rated the 25-year old female faces the most attractive (about 5), with the 18- and 28-year old female faces rated lower (between 2 and 3) and the 60-year old female faces rated the least attractive (about 1).
A serious problem with this study is that the researchers didn't control for the possibility that some of the faces pictured in the photos might simply have been more or less physically attractive than the others, independent of their age or gender. The researchers explicitly acknowledged this shortcoming, speculating that the women's faces in the 25-year old group might have been more attractive than women's faces in the other age groups. But they didn't address the possibility that the attractiveness of the male and female faces may not have been comparable.
This issue could have been addressed in various ways. For example, prior to collecting data, the researchers could have started with a large number of photographs and asked a group of independent raters to evaluate the general physical attractiveness of the face in each photo; these ratings could have been used to select photos for the experiment that were equivalent in attractiveness. Getting independent ratings of experimental stimuli in this way is a common procedure in social psychological research.
Thus, even if one accepts the questionable assumption that this study is relevant, it doesn't support the FRC's contention that gay men are more likely than heterosexual men to be child molesters for several reasons:
This study categorized convicted sex offenders according to whether they molested or reported sexual attraction to boys only, girls only, or both boys and girls. These groups were labeled, respectively, homosexual pedophiles, heterosexual pedophiles, and bisexual pedophiles. This classification referred to their attractions to children. Adult sexual orientation (or even whether the men had an adult sexual orientation) wasn't assessed.
In this study, child sex offenders were interviewed. Their sexual orientation (gay, heterosexual, bisexual) wasn't assessed. The authors drew from their findings to suggest strategies for how parents and children can prevent sexual victimization. It is noteworthy that none of those strategies involved avoiding gay men.
This study, described above in the section on "Other Approaches," contradicts the FRC's argument. The FRC faults the study because the researchers didn't directly interview perpetrators but instead relied on the victims' medical charts for information about the offender's sexual orientation. However, other studies cited favorably by the FRC (and summarized in this section) similarly relied on chart data (Erickson et al., 1988) or did not directly assess the sexual orientation of perpetrators (Blanchard et al. 2000; Elliott et al. 1995; Marshall et al., 1988). Thus, the FRC apparently considers this method a weakness only when it leads to results they dislike.
In this study, the researchers compared 21 men who had sexually molested a male under 16 years (and at least 5 years younger than themselves) to 18 unemployed men who were not known to have molested a child. Over a series of sessions, each man watched color slides of nude males and females of various ages and listened to audiotaped descriptions of both coercive and consensual sexual interactions between a man and a boy. During the sessions, each man sat in a private booth, where he was instructed to lower his trousers and underwear and attach a rubber tube to his penis. The tube detected any changes in penis circumference, with increases interpreted as indicating sexual arousal.
The FRC cites this study as showing that "a homosexual and a heterosexual subgroup can be delineated among these offenders." This is true but hardly relevant to their claims.
The researchers categorized 7 offenders who were more aroused overall by the male nudes than the female nudes as the homosexual subgroup. They categorized 14 offenders who were more aroused overall by the female nudes as the heterosexual subgroup. The offenders were not asked their sexual orientation (gay, straight, bisexual) and the paper does not report any information about the nature of the offenders' adult sexual relationships, or even if they had any such relationships.
the gays need to stop trying to infiltrate into groups in which they are not wanted. They have been out to destroy the boy scouts for a long time and just last year one of them took on eHarmony and won. They should start their own versions of what ever it is they want to do - amazingly enough they will be left alone.””
You might also look what the gayzos did to the Catholic Church too.
Thank you for your support of the homosexual agenda.