What would you consider a significant percentage? If a percentage of black men were inclined to commit crimes, would you support the banning of all black men as Scout leaders because they would be poor role models?
Surveys show that over half of homosexual men have had sex with teenage boys between 16 and 19 years of age while being over 21 themselves.
19 is not 'teenage', and most boys are sexually mature by age 16, but that's an entirely different issue.
And finally, you don't really know what your homosexual friends do. They most likely are not going to tell you that they are attracted to teenage boys.
Being attracted is natural. Acting on that impulse is criminal.
Finally, my own homosexual friend says that sex with any boy over 16 if morally fine, given that that's the age of consent.
Age of consent is a sticky issue. If sexual maturity was the determining factor of when a person can consent to sex we'd have over a billion rules for sexual consent. As a libertarian, I believe it's best left up to the individual.
In New Mexico, it's 14, so I guess he'd find that acceptable. Gay organizations are pushing for lower and lower ages of consent everywhere.
It's my understanding that most boys are aware of their sexual orientation by age 14. IMO, not a concern of the State.
Given all of the above, parents aren't going to want homosexual men with their teenage boys, I assure you - and they're right.
Not all parents are so tight-butted about homosexuals being in the company of their children. Heck, some parents are gay.
Boy Scouts is one of the last places where (normal) men can be men, and boys and parents can be relatively assured of having normal men as mentors and role models.
I had a 'queer' assistant scoutmaster and he done me no harm.
If teenage boys (like my sons) were the specific temptation that caused many black men to commit crimes, that would be reason to ban them from Boy Scouts. Of course, teenage boys are precisely the temptation that leads a significant percentage of homosexual men to molest such boys. That's why most parents wouldn't let their teenage daughters go out camping with heterosexual men either. Most parents, believe it or not, do not want to increase the odds that their children will be molested. But apart from that, most parents don't want to condone, implicitly or explicitly, the filthy practices engaged in by (the majority) of homosexual men - such as anal intercourse - or the promiscuity which is endemic to homosexual society. You may disagree with these parents - but they have the right to determine who will be in charge of their children. Homosexuals are in a far outer universe to think that they have the right to be in the close company of other people's children on overnight campouts in the absence of those children's parents. They don't. So sorry.
Age of consent is a sticky issue. If sexual maturity was the determining factor of when a person can consent to sex we'd have over a billion rules for sexual consent. As a libertarian, I believe it's best left up to the individual.
The fact is that many homosexual men are sexually attracted to teenage boys and see nothing morally wrong with trying to seduce, entice (often with pornography) or convince teenage boys that homosexual encounters with them are OK. When ages of consent for such encounters are set at 14 or 16, there is no legal barrier for them to do try to do so (which is of course why gay organizations are trying their hardest to seek lower and lower ages of consent). Most parents, believe it or not, do not consider it right that their 14-year old sons should be the target of older men who seek to find sexual gratification with them. You may, ppb - if so, I suggest that you let your 14-year old sons spend lots of time with homosexual men. That's your decision. Most parents are quite happy to know that scouts will make every effort to prevent such men from approaching their 14-yr. olds.
C'mon, poopoobutter. Many 14-year olds are just entering into sexual maturity, and many have conflicting sexual feelings for some time - until they are somewhat more adult. The last thing parents want is for an older man on a scout trip to try to engage their son in homosexual activity. Again, that's their right. (And most parents don't believe that 14-year olds are well-equipped to make good decisions regarding sexual behavior anyway.) You might think they're misguided, but so what? You raise your sons as you see fit. We will raise our sons as we see fit. Do you concede that we have the right to do so?
Not all parents are so tight-butted about homosexuals being in the company of their children. Heck, some parents are gay.
You're right. Not all parents are anything. The vast, vast majority of parents don't want their teenage sons spending lots of 'quality' time with homosexual men in their (the parents') absence. They have that right. You can send your 14-year old sons out camping with homosexual men if you want. You have that right. Of course, the parents of a couple of thousand raped and molested Catholic teenage boys are regretting that their sons spent so much 'quality time' with homosexual priests. The point is - we have the right to raise our kids as we see fit - and you have the right to raise yours as you see fit. But nobody has the right to say to me: "I'm an active homosexual man, and I have the right to take your son out camping with me." That right does not exist.
I'm glad. So, if you believe that that one experience means all homosexual men won't harm your sons, go ahead and send your sons out camping with homosexual men. I prefer to keep my sons away from men who have abnormal sexual attractions to them. I must be a monstrous bigot.