It would be utter stupidity for us as citizens, parents and responsible heads of such organizations for the youth of this country, to allow Gay Scout leaders in the B.S.A. There simply is no other answer. The wishes of a few individuals must, as often happens, be subservient to the needs and judgment of the majority.  To those gays who are honorable, it discriminates against them, but then, is there any litmus test which will give the leadership of the Boy Scouts the answers they must have in order to alter their current policy, yet protect these youngsters and young men from harm?  

The courtroom testimony of men who are in their thirties and forties today, but had suffered sexual indignities at the hands of Catholic priests when they were very young, is almost too sad to read, so difficult for us to comprehend. The courtroom recitations of how long and how much they tortured themselves with self-guilt over the years, caused by these dispicable acts when they were too young to realize these were sexual predators and what was happening to them, is heartbreaking.

These stories that we read in our daily newspapers and weekly news magazines show without the shadow of a doubt that the psychological damage can be both devastating and long-lasting.  It clearly demonstrates to us that we cannot overlook it, we cannot ignore it, we cannot pretend that such dangers does not exist, especially for youngsters in their early teens.  While it may inconvenience some or even highly offend others, the scouting movement must have rigid rules in order to protect both the boys and the organization from harm. The risk of sexual molestation is ever present and a firm policy must be securely in place in order to safeguard young men and women who might become victims.

The age of consent in this country for homosexual acts is considered to be 18 by law in many states, but there may be some variations I am unaware of. At what age would a Gay Scout Leader be considered old enough to always use good judgment or to be able to control his passions, or must we just take a chance?

If a religious organization such as the Catholic Church, which is totally professional, and supposedly a most moral group of men and women, has found among its' clergy the most immoral men who preyed upon youngsters at the most vunerable ages, 7 or 8, or 9, 12, we know that we have to be even more careful in other organizations where the proportion of youngsters is even greater. 

Did they practice these sexual proclivities, deviations, habits...at a younger age and enter the clergy because they felt that the opportunity would be greater there for them to satiate their sexual needs?  Or, did the exposure to youngsters in their charge prove too great a temptation to young men who were denied sexual gratification with women by the rules of the church?

Did they feel gay or know they were gay before entering the priesthood, or did these needs simply grow as they found their victims under their care and control? Without knowing all the answers, how can any group, Gay or Liberal or other, ask us to toss common sense overboard and give them the control over youngsters that they seek? How can any parent give up their concerns and simply hand over a child to a Gay Scout Leader and say, "I unequivocally trust every Gay person I meet and I am going to allow my child to go on overnight trips with them and approve of all Gay Scout Leaders because I simply refuse to discriminate against Gays."

Sure, it is a wonderful position to take, except if it proves to be a mistake! Sure, it is great to be so accomodating and open-minded to Gay organizations, until you uncover a nest of men who are pedophiles and then find out that they've violated ten, twelve or a score of youngsters and reaped a harvest of tortured men who have turned to alcohol and drugs in order to overcome their feeling of shame and humiliation! What happens if you have a young Gay Scout Leader and he violates your trust?  Sue?  Sure, it may be a great solution for you to take, but what about the young man who was the victim?  Can any amount of money heal his wounds?

THE GAY-LESBIAN AGENDA is to make homosexuality as acceptable in all social circles as heterosexual relationships, thereby widening interest and increasing their pool of sexual partners.  This acceptance is contrary to natural law, but also leads to increased risk to our young people of exposure to AIDS.

So, what should we say, "Hey, it's alright. It was nothing but a young guy who wanted to suck on your penis (or dick) and let's face it, Kid, didn't it feel good to you?" or "Son, yes, butts can be used for sex. Don't worry about it." or "Hey, you've got to learn about sex some time, and what difference does it make whether it is a twenty year old man or a fifteen year old girl?"  I mean, how Liberal can you be?

"Hey, Mommy sees nothing wrong with it. Daddy doesn't. They Scoutmaster was a guy who was Gay, so what!" "Well, my little boy, what did he teach you today, that when you get to be an Eagle Scout, he's going to give you a special blow job?" or "Oh, your fanny is sore? That naughty Scoutmaster. Drop your undershorts, sweetie, and mommy will spray some bacterin on it. Oh, dear, it's bleeding a bit."

"Johnny, Mrs. Adams tells me you've been showing her son all these sexual things you've learned in Scouting. I'm ashamed of you. Let him join the Scouts and learn them there himself." or "Gordon, stop telling me such stories. I don't believe you." or "It was hoooow big?" or "He did what?  Oh goodness."  How would you prefer your son to grow up?  You're responsible, as his parent, to protect him until he is old enough to make his own determination, so do your duty and don't hesitate to speak up.  If enough people join forces to speak out, you'll drive the invaders off.

If you think I'm being crude, well, that's exactly what it is all about. Liberals don't want to admit it because they feel sympathetic towards Gays; Conservatives are afraid to talk about it because they're afraid of being labeled homophobic for trying to be honest and discuss it rationally; Gays don't want to it brought out in the open because they don't want the truth known about their lifestyle, that it's high-risk, but that it also involves a great many seductions of non-gays in order to find multiple lovers.  And the public in general ignores it because  watching re-runs of Seinfeld is more important than what goes on in the outside world. Yet, kids in the locker room or the school-yard have a good idea of what it's all about and they talk about it, as they always have. Thank God that young boys can be frank becuse it educates them, but even that is being stifled today with the insistence by the Liberal element on everyone being so politically correct.  That's the problem today, teachers or misguided students always shutting off such discussions because it is, what's the term again? Oh, politically correct.

That's total B.S.  I'm not going to be politically correct.  The only way you can let young people know the truth is by being blunt, by using crude language if you think it's necessary.  

By telling them that it is wrong to talk frankly about Gay life, about Gay seduction methods, about Gay activities, leaves them more open to the types of problems that besiege the Catholic church with law suits today.  It can keep them STRAIGHT.  It can keep them on the STRAIGHT and narrow road, if you will.  If nothing else, then repeat after me in a loud voice:

Tell me, looking at a man who states outright that he is gay, how do you determine whether or not his preference is for guys under 18 or over 18? What is the exact definition of a pedophile and what exactly are their parameters? Will an 18 or 19 year old Gay Scout Leader crawl into a sleeping bag with a 15 year old boy, like in Brokeback Mountain? Is there anyone who can truly define it and inform the rest of us as to the facts? If anything, that movie gave all parents something to think about, because one does not know the age limitations, and they don't know them simply because there are none.

If a 14 year old boy is molested, what qualifies it as pedophilia, that it is performed by a young man of 18, or 25, or middle-aged man of 40, or an older man at 55 who does it to him? There are no standard definitions that I am aware of, and there are different laws in different states and countries! In England they recently changed the age of consent between males, lowering it from 18 to 16. Therefore, there could be an on-going perfectly legal love-affair between two English scouts while out on a week-end camping trip, while it would be illegal in the U.S.  Those two scouts could be having sex in a tent (tents are not soundproof) and impacting the lives of younger scouts nearby!

The dangers are greater than anyone should be asked to accept, the questions too numerable and unanswerable to resolve without years of study. I don't think being practical and logical is anti-Gay, but call me what you want, I know who and what I am, so I do not fear YOU.  "If my son needs my guidance I'm there for him, but if my neighbor's son needs help, I'll be there for him too." That's my way of thinking.

Today, February 24, 2006 they announced the detention of a group of U.S. Army Paratroopers for making male sex porn flics. If they find a group of paratroopers acting in Gay porno films and kick them out of the Army, don't you think that you have something to fear if you give in to the demands of Gay politicians and Gay advocates that seek to force the B.S.A. to give in to their demands, to open the ranks of Scout Leader to all, no matter what their sexual preferences? It takes but two or three mistakes, a few lawsuits and $30 million judgments and Scouting becomes a thing of the past. That's when I say, "Balls!" It defies rational thinking and responsible action, and reasonable men should not be expected to give up control to unreasonable people.

No, scouting does not discriminate against youngsters who seem to be a bit feminine in nature, but they're forced into the position of making a judgment call when a Boy Scout stands forth and announces to the world, "I am Gay, and I want to be a Scout Leader."

Okay, buster, but without a Troop. We're not going to put young boys under your care and protection, because we simply do not have the answers that we need, for our protection and yours, nor can you supply the answers, so, bug off!  You may be, potentially, the best Boy Scout leader in the country, but how can we ba assured of that?  How do we know?  How can we determine the difference between those of a Gay orientation who will take to younger boys and those who will not?  Give us an answer that we can depend upon, one that is soundly and medically correct. That's the way these demands must be answered, that is the way that they must be met.

How do we know whether or not an 18 year old Gay Scout Leader will be attracted to a 16 or 14 year old boy under his care? Do they have special brain cells that automatically reject a guy two or three years younger? He's 18, he's gay. He likes male sex, male to male, like they portrayed it in Brokeback Mountain.

That's his thing (no pun intended). Is he going to go out and automatically look for an older guy, 21 to 31 years old, or even older than that? How do we know? What exactly do we know? Nothing!  It's politically incorrect to even discuss it, to ask vital questions, to raise the issue!  That's they way they want it and for only one reason, so YOU will never know the answers.

We all need to exercise some backbone; we all need to have an open and honest dialogue with responsible Gay people, not one weenie group of Liberals talking with another weenie group of Gays, and the rest of us falling into line with this crap and agreeing to it simply because we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. That's frank talk; that's the way we used to speak. BE NOT AFRAID. Man to man, face to face. We're not against Gays, we simply are dead-set against losing control of our children. YOU cannot guarantee us one thing, the most important thing, the safety of our children under every Gay leader who appears on the scene, so we have to use our good judgment and say, "No!" and say it loud and clear.

WHAT IS A PEDOPHILE, EXACTY WHAT?  ST. LOUIS, MO. CASE.

Jan. 14, 2007.  The other day a young boy, William Ben Olmby (13), was abducted in a town of Beaufort, not too far from St. Louis, Mo. He was found by an alert policeman, who saw a car that fit the description furnished by a witness in the case and investigated it.  In the home of the suspect, Michael J. Devlin (41), in Kirkwood, MO, the police found not only the Olmby boy, but a long missing boy, Shawn Hornbeck (15), who was abducted at age 11 from where he lived in Richwoods, MO.

Now, there are many unanswered questions in this case, the same as there were some years ago in the case of Stephen Stayner, abducted by Kenneth Parnell at age 7 in 1972, and located when he was 14.  Parnell also captured five year old Timmy White, whom Stayner saved simply by going to the authorities with White and turning Parnell in to the police.

Along with the Elizabeth Smart (Salt Lake City, Utah), these cases illustrate that there is a deep-rooted social problem that we know too little about, but one that we are also afraid to talk about, afraid to openly discuss, because we MUST be politically correct and avoid all homosexual issues because we may be labeled (and libeled) as homophobic (a non-word).

What in the Hell is wrong with us?  These cases illustrate a problem that exists, and to me they also demonstrate that there must be scores, if not hundreds, and possibly thousands, of other children who have gone missing and who are in the hands of such pedophiles, both here and abroad. Stayner could have freed himself, Shawn Hornbeck could have freed himself, and even Elizabeth Smart had some opportunities when out in public, but a psychological fear or dependence of some kind overcame their natural instincts and they failed to act. 

At what age is it pedophilia?  Hornbeck is now 15.  His captor, Devlin is 41.  We do not know if there were sexual acts involved yet, but if so, what kind, what was done to the youngster and how prevalent is this problem? 

Supposing the boy was 15 and the captor 18 or 19 or 20, instead of 37?  Is it still an act involved in a matter called pedophilia?  Was Stayner emotionally screwed up after that, or normal?  Will Hornbeck be emotionally devastated for life or will he become the same boy as he was at age 11 when he was abducted?  What will his future be after this experience?

Was Kenneth Parnell  considered a homosexual at one time, before he became attracted to young boys? Or was Michael Devlin  considered a homosexual at one time?  If so, at what point did their tendencies for male-to-male love turn to man-to-boy love? These are legitimate questions for parents to ask, for the B.S.A. to be interested in, and until there are good solid answers that reassure everyone, to hold firm to their position that a Gay scout leader is not best suited in their guidelines. 

The more we move towards a position of total approval of all homosexual conduct, the greater the chance of more Stayner/Ownby incidents.  Soon, as in England, the age of consent for homosexual acts will drop to 16, and then, perhaps 14. 

And, there is yet another question to ask: How many other Shawn Hornbeck's are there, who have watched this story on TV and wish they too had the nerve to run to their neighbors' home and ask them to call the police?  Across this nation there are many parents who are living in hope, the same as the Hornbecks were for four years, and whose prayers could be answered if we all remained alert, as well as having the guts to take a position and stand firm behind scouting.

(For more startling information on this matter, go to Steve Huff's blogsite: http://truecrimeblog.blogspot.com/   See Jan. 11, 12, 13. ) __________________________________________________________________ 

 _____________________________________________________________ 

That does not make us automatically homophobic, it simply makes us good honest decent parents or good practical Board members of the B.S.A., or other groups in charge of young men and women, whose primary responsibility is the safety of the children under our care. That's it. That's all.