This thread is specifically about SADs wanting to become leaders of the Boy Scouts of America. SAD defenders immediately want to ask what private, consensual sex between two adults has to do with anything. We are talking about a public issue regarding boys - all of whom are under 18 - but the SAD defenders move back to the same tired argument.
The key issue is whether SADs are mentally disturbed or not. If they are, then the proper, compassionate response is to encourage them to seek help and to love them through the help. It is not to encourage them to practice their disturbed behavior more and more openly. If they are not, then the proper response is to keep your own kids safe.
Along those lines, I understand that the disturbance can be very mild and have minimal impact on their ability to integrate into our society. The idea that people with mild mental illness should not be treated for their own good lead to the release of many from mental institutions who now flood our cities with homeless. It is very libertarian, and very bad law.
Shalom.
I agree, but Liberaltarians for example are willing to forgo drug laws and then on the other hand being fiscally conservative would probably forgo funding of drug treatment centers. The result being streets full of addicts along side all the mentally ill left over from Kennedy’s administration. (You know the people need to be responsible for them selves’ Liberaltarian mantra.) Same with homosexuals; let them devastate a society based on the family while the Liberaltarians sit in their vacuum saying it doesn’t effect me.
Is that cynical enough?