The pro-homo libtards hate the BSA because they have tried to keep faggots away from the Scouts.
Besides keeping the “morally straight” clause, and not permitting homo scoutmasters, the “two adult” rule is critical.
It’s very difficult for the pro-homo libtards to be honest about all of this. If they push for homo scountmasters, are they not advocating for more Sanduskys?
The experience of the Catholic church, homosexual priests and boys shows that it doesn’t end well.
The experience of Penn State, Jerry Sandusky and boys shows it doesn’t end well.
The experience of the BSA itself, homosexual leaders and boys shows that it doesn’t end well.
Given all that, anyone agitating that the BSA should allow homosexual leaders is either too moronic to be allowed out of the institution unsupervised, or actively wishes to promote the molestation of boys and should be shot in sight.
This is really an attempt to make the Scouts look bad and look as if these crimes had been happening all along with their knowledge and therefor it wouldn’t matter if the BSA had gay Scoutmasters, etc.
It does appear that as soon as the Scouts had any idea that something bad was happening, they got rid of these guys. It doesn’t appear that they always reported them to the police, however, but that was very typical of the time when many of these crimes probably occurred (the 1980s and early 90s) because by then homosexuality had been declared ok and ephebophilia (basically, gay men going after young teenagers and boys) was just part of it.
The other problem, of course, is that child molesters are very good at “grooming” the adults around them, too - that is, accustoming them to seeing more and more interaction with the children, moving from things like taking an interest in the kids’ homework to inviting them to spend the weekend with them. They also are very good at picking the right parents, very often single women who are so grateful that any male is taking an interest in their kids that they probably don’t examine it too closely.
Liberals use the “for the children” for all kinds of extreme rules and regulations but when it comes to homosexuals and children they demand total freedom to assault our children. I mean, why can’t the BSA say “no homos, for the children” and get liberal cooperation when liberals say “for the children” and expect anything and everything goes?