Folks, each day, it seems, brings another outrage by the Obama administration, to the point where it is difficult to keep track of them all. Amidst the swirl of mendacious spin, crass political lies, imperious law-breaking and general incompetence, Attorney General Eric Holder found time to promote allowing homosexual men as Boy Scout leaders. [See the full Holder speech HERE.] Perhaps putting adult men who are sexually attracted to other men (and/or adolescent boys) in tents out in the woods with 12-year-old boys is a priority for LGBT-enthralled liberals, but we doubt it sits high on the list for the rest of America. (Last year, the BSA caved on allowing homosexual youth members.)
Perhaps Mr. Holder is so busy promoting a leftist social agenda that he is unaware that the BSA has already been forced—under a victims’ lawsuit–to release a portion of its “perversion files” documenting boy-molesting Scoutmasters; AFTAH has called on the Scouts’ leadership to release ALL the sordid files. So the current policy banning homosexual men is hardly about “perpetuating stereotypes” but actually about protecting boys. Moreover, there is now a group, B4UAct.org, that is working to help and humanize pedophiles as “minor-attracted people” (MAPs), which will invariably contribute to the “mainstreaming” of pedophilia in society. Penn State research mathematician and pro-family writer Gary Morella responds to Holder on the potential of the Boy Scouts acquiescing to a full “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy on homosexuality, i.e., including adults. – Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH
“And in far too many organizations, policies and practices that discriminate against LGBT individuals remain persistent concerns. Lambda Legal is among the groups that have led efforts to address these conditions – for instance, through your work in 1992, in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, to challenge the termination of an Assistant Scoutmaster when the organization found out he was gay. Unfortunately, the continuation of a policy that discriminates against gay adult leaders–by an iconic American institution–only preserves and perpetuates the worst kind of stereotypes. Like ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ it’s a relic of an age of prejudice and insufficient understanding. Today, courageous lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals routinely put their lives on the line as members of America’s armed services. They inspire us, they protect us, and they defend us. And if these men and women are fit for military service, then surely they are fit to mentor, to teach, and to serve as role models for the leaders of future generations.”–U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder
* * *
Ousted Scoutmaster and homosexual predator William Lazzareschi is among those listed in the Boy Scouts’ “perversion files” released under court order through a victims’ lawsuit. AFTAH has called on the BSA to release ALL its homosexual molestation files.
By Gary Morella
The morally bankrupt elitists that make up the totality of the Obama Administration are owed nothing but the contempt of Americans in more than name only opposing their diabolic agenda via their constitutional freedom of religion rights to oppose that which the invariant moral teaching of their faith summarily condemns for the sake of the common good rooted in the “laws of nature, and of nature’s God.” Theirs is a morally bankrupt social engineering agenda which has two main priorities–the mandated promotion of baby killing via abortion and sexual perversion under force of unjust law which is owed no obedience whatsoever.
How can a Boy Scout be inclined to homosexuality? A Scout takes an oath to be “morally straight,” which makes the concept of “homosexual Scouts” oxymoronic.
And what about the well-documented correlation between pedophilia and homosexuality? Are we obliged to put our Scouts at risk because a radical minority hell-bent on living self-destructive lifestyles won’t be satisfied until they are confirmed in their vice, demanding acceptance of their perverted lifestyles by all aspects of society including the religious community?
I have a simple question. If there is no connection between pedophilia and homosexuality, why are articles promoting the former showing up repeatedly in homosexual journals?
A new relativism?
Those who are interested in legalizing sexual relations between adults and children want to change the parameters of the discussion from the “absolutist” moral position, to the “relative” position that it can sometimes be beneficial. A controversial 1998 article in an American Psychological Association Bulletin, an article that was subsequently refuted by the head of the APA after the pressure of near-unanimous congressional condemnation with the notable exception of a handful of representatives to include a prominent homosexual, furthered exactly this position.
In a lead article of the Journal of Homosexuality [published in 1999], Harris Mirkin argues that the “sexually privileged” have disadvantaged the pedophile through sheer political force in the same way that blacks were disadvantaged by whites before the civil-rights movement. One would hope that supporters of the late Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., could see that, if Christianity meant anything to Dr. King, he would roll over in his grave to see such a perverted analogy with a civil rights movement that had nothing to do with promoting aberrant self-destructive behavior. His niece, Alveda Celeste King, has been outspoken to that effect, saying in a CNN report “that to equate homosexuality with race is to give a death sentence to civil rights.”
In 1991, the campaign to legalize man-boy sex was furthered by the publication of a two-issue special of the Journal of Homosexuality, reissued as Male Intergenerational Intimacy: Historical, Socio-Psychological, and Legal Perspectives. [Editor's note: the book was published by Harrington Park Press, an imprint of Haworth Press, publisher of the Journal of Homosexuality.]
This volume provided devastating information on the way psychologically immature pedophile men use vulnerable boys who are starved for adult nurturance and protection.
In the foreword, Gunter Schmidt decries discrimination against and persecution of pedophiles, and describes “successful pedophile relationships which help and encourage the child, even though the child often agrees to sex while really seeking comfort and affection. These are often emotionally deprived, deeply lonely, socially isolated children who seek, as it were, a refuge in an adult’s love and for whom, because of their misery, see it as a stroke of luck to have found such an ‘enormously nurturant relationship’.”
Another writer [the late Edward Brongersma] said a man who counseled troubled teenage boys could achieve “miracles not by preaching to them, but by sleeping with them.” The loving pedophile can offer a “companionship, security and protection” which neither peers nor parents can provide (p. 162). Parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son “not as a rival or competitor, not as a thief of their property, but as a partner in the boy’s upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home…” (p. 164).
In yet another deeply disturbing article in Male Intergenerational Intimacy, revealingly titled, “The Main Thing is Being Wanted: Some Case Studies on Adult Sexual Experiences with Children.” pedophiles reveal their need to find a child who will satisfy their desire for uncritical affirmation and a lost youth. One of the men justifies his activity as a search for love, and complains that: “Although I’ve had physical relationships with probably, I don’t know, maybe a hundred or more boys over the years, I can only point to four or five true relationships over that time.”
The volume also contains an introductory article that decries society’s anti-pedophile sentiment. The authors complain about the difficulty studying man-boy relationships in “an objective way,” and they hope that the social sciences will adopt a broader approach that could lead to understanding of the “diversity and possible benefits of intergenerational intimacy.”
“Right” of children to enjoy sex?
Mirkin says the discussion must move on to such issues as the “right” of children to have and enjoy sex.
To pedophile advocates, any discussion of the benefits of child-adult sex is a victory. The APA should have understood this, and should have been well aware of, and vocally resistant to, the growing movement to legalize pedophilia as promoted in homosexual journals.
Have we devolved as a society to such an extent that the “right of children to have and enjoy sex” carries more weight than the rights of their parents, charged with their physical and spiritual welfare, to bring them up according to the law of God, in particular, His natural law written on the hearts of men? We will have if we acquiesce to the demands of radical homosexuality as evidenced by the aforementioned articles in the Journal of Homosexuality.
The good news is that the Journal of Homosexuality has performed a service by letting us know just who the real extremists are. Remember that the next time the word “homophobe” rears its ugly head in conversation or policy.
Lest we forget, what we’re witnessing is a backdoor attempt to subvert the very moral foundation of the Boy Scouts of America through homosexual agitprop. How can parents, who out of course of fulfilling their responsibilities to their children by justly discriminating between right and wrong behavior, feel comfortable with a policy that would allow publicly avowed homosexual advocates and/or homosexuals into scouting on the premise that they would not condone and/or perform homosexual acts?
The very real agenda of such advocates was shown on Fox’s O’Reilly news show of 8/1/01, when a representative from the Massachusetts gay and lesbian caucus argued that “Don’t ask, don’t tell” also meant that the Scouts can’t talk about heterosexual relationships leading to marriage, and their leaders couldn’t wear wedding rings, implying that somehow, such talk would offend the homosexual membership. In short, what he was advocating was that “Don’t ask, don’t tell” not only applied to the unnatural acts of homosexuals that have been historically condemned by the vast majority of faith traditions, but also to natural marriage acts that aren’t “equally” condemned.
Scout Handbook re-write coming?
Real marriage offends homosexuals because “marriage” is not reserved for them, no matter that the concept of “homosexual marriage” is oxymoronic since there is this slight problem with propagation of the species. This kind of an attitude means that the portion of the Scout Handbook on Sexual Responsibility (Chapter 14, pp. 376-378) with the accent on “responsibility” will have to be rewritten.
The aforementioned homosexual advocate had no problems referring to homosexuals as parents when asked by O’Reilly why he couldn’t understand the concerns of parents in regard to the safety of their children. This is completely counter to what is in the Scout Handbook, which rightfully recognizes the natural context, the ONLY context of marriage, between a man and a woman.
What about the Handbook section that deals with responsibility to your beliefs where the Scouts are told that “sex should take place only between people who are married to each other” with abstinence until marriage being the priority concern in order to “give a child a close, loving family in which to grow”–with the clear inference that procreation is a function of “natural” monogamous marriage with a person of the opposite sex?
What about the section that deals with a Scout’s responsibility to himself where he’s told that “An understanding of ‘wholesome’ sexual behavior can bring lifelong happiness with irresponsibility or ignorance causing a lifetime of regret?” What could be more irresponsible than the de facto promotion of homosexuality by such misguided policies such as “Don’t ask, don’t tell” given the evidence coming from many professional sources to include the Center for Disease Control that homosexual behavior is the most risky because of the unnatural acts involved and its widely documented aspect of promiscuity where monogamous relationships are not the norm?
These are questions from responsible parents, recognizing that Scouts put a premium on telling the truth, that Boy Scout councils contemplating only “technical” adherence to their rules are required to answer. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” travels only one road, that of de facto homosexual advocacy.
What is required for the welfare of all concerned, not the least of which is a group of people being told the heinous lie that their aberrant unnatural behavior is physically and psychologically OK in total ignorance of the mountain of evidence to the contrary, is a “Please ask, please tell” policy with regard to homosexuality. The most serious spiritual consequences will result if the BSA continues to undermine its own Scout Oath emphasizing “doing my best to do my duty to God,” first and foremost. You don’t “help other people” by lying to them, another part of the Scout Oath.
AFTAH Calls on the Boy Scouts of America to Release ALL its Homosexual Molestation Files: [click HERE]
Sexual Assault Case Again Proves FORMER Boy Scout Policy was Right (2009):
Holder: If Gay Adults Are Fit for Military Service, They Are Fit to Lead Boy Scouts (CNS News): [Click HERE]