Posted on 09/20/2002 8:22:19 AM PDT by gubamyster
Posted: September 20, 2002 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
In a crazy top-down decision, the Big Brothers-Big Sisters of America organization told its local chapters they would no longer be able to exclude homosexuals from mentoring children.
It didn't take long for that sick, irresponsible ruling to result in its first casualties – innocent children raped by predators.
In Ohio, Scott A. Wagner, 34, has been indicted on 24 counts of rape and 57 sexual abuse charges involving six boys. Wagner was a volunteer with Big Brothers-Big Sisters and "mentored" one of the boys.
I shouldn't have to explain why the Big Brothers organization is morally culpable for these crimes. But, sadly, in this day and age, it is necessary to get down to basics.
Big Brothers still has the good sense not to assign adult men to "mentor" young girls. They do this because a certain percentage of adult heterosexual men will be tempted to sexually abuse those girls. It's just a simple fact. We all accept it. There is no denying it.
The denial, however, comes into play with homosexuals. Because of the "diversity" craze, because of "tolerance-mania," because of political correctness gone mad, many in our society deny the same principle holds true for homosexuals. Or, if they do, they prefer to overlook the facts as a way of making some kind of social statement at the expense of a few child sexual victims.
It's obscene.
It's even worse than that. Not only is it indisputably true that a small percentage of homosexuals are tempted to involve themselves sexually with boys under their care, statistics show that homosexuals commit a disproportionate number of child sex crimes.
Homosexuals represent somewhere between 1 percent and 3 percent of the population. Yet they commit up to one-third of all sex crimes against children. Knowing this, why would any responsible agency want to put more children in harm's way?
Of course, homosexual activists will also deny reality. They will cite bogus statistics concocted by pseudo-researchers like Alfred Kinsey – himself a sexual sociopath. They will even tell you that homosexuals are less likely to be molesters than heterosexuals. They will tell you that anyone like me who cites real facts is just a hater, a homophobe.
In other words, they will lie to protect their own vested interests in a sexually immoral lifestyle and a political program that stands on its head 5,000 years of Judeo-Christian sexual ethics. That's what we should expect from them and that's what they are delivering. What continues to amaze me is the way so many people buy their political propaganda and think they are doing compassionate work by exposing children to those most likely to abuse them.
Imagine the plight of these poor kids. They seek out some adult guidance, friendship and love from an organization like the Big Brothers. And what Big Brothers gives them are predators seeking sexual thrills with these kids.
You might think the leaders of this organization had been reading the news, observing the big judgments against the Catholic Church for allowing priests to abuse boys under their care. Evidently not. In the very face of this scandal, the Big Brothers changes its rules to make it inevitable that more boys will be victimized.
Thank God a few organizations – like the Boy Scouts of America – have defied tremendous pressures to cave in like the Big Brothers. They understand their first responsibility is to the safety of children. They understand that an organization working with children must first ensure they do no harm. They understand that reducing the risk of allowing sexual abuse to scar children is a moral imperative.
As a result of this common-sense approach to a very real problem, the Boy Scouts have been boycotted. They have been sued. They have been thrown out of public facilities. They have been maligned. They have been characterized as some kind of subversive organization. They have been bullied. They have had funds cut off.
It's time to stand up in support of common sense and the Boy Scouts and reject the dangerous, twisted policies of groups like the Big Brothers.
One: Your way of expressing yourself is something I see most often in Marxists who are trying to deceive people into believing things which are very obviously untrue.
Two: My point is that if both parties have the same equipment, then it is a homosexual act. You are (unbelievably) trying to argue that it doesn't matter. It (apparently) isn't a homosexual act unless the perpetrator "self-identifies" as homosexual. That, Sir, is a bunch of BS. And I suspect you know it.
I only offer my evidence as confirmation of what many of us innately know.
(Of course the SAD apologists will say that just because a man molests a boy it's not a homosexual act.)
Freeper Bryan posted a huge compendium of research proving this stat, including the original crime statistics. I've got it bookmarked somewhere but can't find it at the moment.
God Save America (Please)
I feel like having fun: imagine a conversation with such a person:
Madg opines: "No man will ever be President of the United States."
"That's silly. Happens all the time."
"Ha! That's ridiculous! Educated people know it's not true. Name one!"
"George Washington."
"Oh, so 1 example? That's all you have? You extrapolate your data based on one data-point? Don't you think your conclusion is a bit far-fetched? You'd never make it as a scientist! Go on, name another (as if you can)! "
"John Adams."
"Two? That's it? This is silly! There's 3 billion men on the planet, and all you can come up with is 2 who have been President of the United States!"
"Thomas Jefferson."
"Look, these 3 are not men as recognized in the current scientific literature. You're making my case for me. I think people watching this debate realize that you're losing. Clearly, no man has ever been President of the United States."
"James Madison."
"Look, the post-structuralist antinomian view of societal influences may persuade, in a teleological sense, that post-colonial praxis can be realized in a statis environment. But the point you're trying to make was proven to be outmoded by Schottscrer at the Vienna Conference in 1953! No one but a Garibaldian holds those views now! In fact, the dominant hegemony of a patriarchal construct specifically argues against the post-modern denominalist superstructure that you're trying to erect. I think you should admit defeat."
When you know something innately, a single incident is confirmation of that which you know to be true.
besides, 87 % of statistics are made up.
yes
"Finally, why would you need “confirmation” of something that you think you already know?"
I don't, but for the non-believers, its another grain of sand heaped upon the mountain of already existing evidence.
"I don’t see how it’s possible that anyone can “innately know” anything about what we’re discussing."
Some of us have a firmer grasp of the obvious than others. Why? Obviously, God gave us all different gifts. I've been aware of my clarity since my early youth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.