A Question for those Who Believe in Homosexual Scouts

SellwynThumbby Selwyn Duke   5/20/14
Not satisfied with having pressured the Boy Scouts of America into lifting their prohibition against openly homosexual scouts, activists now want homosexual scoutmasters to be allowed as well. Equality, you know, is the order of the day. Yet the truth is that virtually all of you who advocate this social change operate with a certain bias — you just don’t realize it.

Let’s put aside for a moment the issue of homosexuality’s moral status; for argument’s sake, I’ll accept the supposition that homosexuality is the equivalent of heterosexuality. But if this is so and it’s okay for a homosexual man be a troop leader and go on camping trips with 11 and 12-year-old boys, why isn’t it okay to have a heterosexual man be a Girl Scout troop leader and do the same with the girls?

Yes, I know that men are responsible for most sex crimes, but the homosexual man is a man, too. So why the double standard? Homosexuality and heterosexuality are equivalent, right?

It has often been said that fears of homosexual BSA leaders are unwarranted because there’s a difference between homosexuality and pedophilia. But then fears of men as Girl Scout leaders would be unwarranted, too, as there’s also a difference between heterosexuality and pedophilia, correct? After all, homosexuality and heterosexuality are equivalent.

Some activists might also aver that homosexual scout masters are vetted adults who will behave responsibly. But then the same could be said about male Girl Scout leaders, no?

As for the scouts themselves, if it’s okay for a 13-year-old boy with same-sex attraction to sleep in a tent with other 13-year-old boys, why can’t a heterosexual 13-year-old boy go camping with 13-year-old girl scouts? Homosexuality and heterosexuality are equivalent, right?

By the way, the BSA was once sued by a girl who wanted to be a “boy scout,” and there are people who say that separating the sexes in such ways is intolerable inequality. Besides, those on the cutting edge of sexual activism contend that “gender” is a personal choice, anyway, and one feminist professor insists that “gender” (I believe her theory means this to include “sex” also) doesn’t even exist. So allowing what I’ve outlined does seem like an imperative of progressive thought’s latest iteration.

Some activists also say that it’s silly to fear homosexual activity among boy scouts because the kids won’t indulge such things unless they’re inclined to do so in the first place. But the same could be said of teen boys with girl scouts — the girls won’t do anything they’re not inclined to. And homosexuality and heterosexuality are equivalent, right?

Of course, you may have a problem with all this if you understand that there is such thing as temptation and that precautions should be taken to minimize the chances of sexual activity in youth programs. If this is your attitude, though, then it follows that the exact same standards — and prohibitions — that apply to occasions of heterosexual temptation should apply to occasions of homosexual temptation.

Because as we all know, homosexuality and heterosexuality are equivalent.
Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com • (1665 views)

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to A Question for those Who Believe in Homosexual Scouts

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    Excellent. I’ve made similar points myself in various venues. The BSA should agree to allow homosexual scoutmasters — provided the homosexual activists and their groups put up an escrow fund to pay off all the inevitable victims of pedophilia and hebephilia. (Of course, in a decade or so liberals will no longer see anything wrong with those. After all, Nan Pelousy, the San Francisco Freak, already proudly joins NAMBLA marches. Her goal is to let her NAMBLA friends use Scouts as a sexual smorgasbord.)

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      In a hundred years the textbooks might call our time “The Age of the Forever Adolescent.”

      There are various types of totalitarian utopias. The flavor that infects much of the West, and certainly America, is this almost Freudian psychological push to forever remain the idealized teenager rebelling against his or her parents.

      What else has “the man” stifled our free spirits with? Well, sexual identity itself, of course, which is an old paternal plot to make sex “dirty” and to keep women down. We must be freed from any kind of angst about sex. The only proper attitude is sex all of the time and with anyone. Anything less than that is a sign of “repression.”

      Once fueled by this insanity, it can only be left to test the principle of reductio ad absurdum — which has led to NAMBLA praise by prominent politicians, for example, as you pointed out.

      I insist that the 60’s was where America’s soul was lost, replaced by a really stupid and naive vision for how to live a human life. We should have a new slogan: Don’t trust anyone under 30 or who is over 30 who ever believed the opposite slogan.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        One interesting aspect of this irony is that liberals hate authority figures (for a superb example, study Marc Scott Zicree’s comments on several episodes of The Twilight Zone, especially “One More Pallbearer”) — yet they push (I like that verb, with its hint that Big Government is like an addicting drug) a system designed to maximize the power of such authority figures.

    • Rosalys says:

      “Nan Pelousy”. It has a certain ring of truth to it – I like it!

      What an evil, evil b-i-itch she is! She’s got a big family. Lots of kids and grandkids; I think I saw them all together once as she paraded them in front of the camera at some political moment. Perhaps, being a member of the elite ruling class, she believes her own brood can be sheltered from the consequences of embracing the goals of NAMBLA. Or could it be she wants her loved ones to experience the joys of the NAMBLA lifestyle? I hope it’s the former because evil though she be, she would still possess a spark of humanity. Oh, God! If it’s the latter then she would be an evil, evil, EVIL b-i-itch, totally devoid of any light – a monster!

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Incidentally, the whole sobriquet comes from old TV ads for Rice-a-Roni (“Rice-a-Roni, the San Francisco treat”). Plus, as you rightly point it, it aptly describes her.


        Pelosi is incredibly stupid, a trait she shares with many among the hard-core Left. Thus it is more likely that she cannot see the danger NAMBLA represents.

        • Rosalys says:

          I once heard, “Never attribute to malice that which can be easily explained by stupidity!”

          So you may be right. I certainly hope so. I can remove one of the evils; she is merely an evil b-i-itch. Maybe that means she has a chance (albeit a slim one) of learning and seeing the error of her ways – even repentance! I do not wish eternal damnation on anyone. I’ve used the expression, “What the hell?”, but I would never, ever say to anyone, “Go to hell!” Not even Nan Pelousy – or Dingy Harry, or AlGore, or Obummer, etc., etc., etc..

  2. steve lancaster says:

    This issue like many others comes to the right to freely associate or not associate. If San Francisco or Hollywood wants a homosexual scouting organization let them form one and announce to all the world that is their intent and they have no links, social, political, or moral with BSA.

    Let them survive or fail on the strength of their business model with NO, REPEAT, NO government funding. How long do you think it would last? I don’t think it would ever get off the ground.


      Remember, Steve, these people don’t give a damn about Scouting; their purpose is power and control, in this case, the power to force dissenting organizations to adhere to the gay agenda.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        As O’Brien told Winston Smith, the purpose of power is to acquire more power. Fortunately, modern liberalism isn’t quite as sadistic as O’Brien, but that’s still their whole purpose — everything that helps them gain power is good, everything that makes it more difficult is bad. (It’s basically tribalism.) And the point of power is making other people do what they don’t want, or not do what they want to do.


          Yes, and the examples are now so numerous as to be frightening. HHS’s regulation requiring Churches (and others who object) to fund abortifacient drugs is another good example: there was no need for such regulations to make Obamacare “work,” but Obama and Sebelius went out of their way to violate the consciences of their opponents and crush the Church.

      • steve lancaster says:

        Yes, I understand that everything the progressives do is with power and control in mind that is what makes them so dangerous. That is why when forced to support an idea or program based on its merits they always fail, but not before destroying the purpose and object of their interest.

  3. Rosalys says:

    Your reasoning, Mr. Duke, is impeccable.

  4. Anniel says:

    Thinking back I remember so many “problems” with BSA and boys being molested . One boy eventually shot and killed his scoutmaster. The scoutmaster’s wife, who knew of his proclivities, made some ridiculous statement about not judging him by just one aspect of his life.


    An elegant skewering of the Left’s inconsistencies on these issues by Selwyn. Of course, there is an underlying story here, and it is to de-legitimize opposition to the cultural Left by means of Political Correctness, or more formally, by the fallacy of the Argument from Intimidation.

    This is what we have seen recently from the bullies of GLADD and others of their ilk; rather than trying to have Brendan Eich jailed for “hate crimes” (that comes later, if necessary), for now, it is enough to intimidate those who fail to toe the Party line by assuming (without proof) that their positions, such as opposition to same-sex “marriage,” are so obviously evil that social ostracism and loss of employment is the least we should do to them.

    After all, you don’t need totalitarian measures in law when you can simply intimidate your opposition into silence by the threat of serious non-governmental consequences, and the Left is doing this repeatedly with issues like SSM and Global Warming – a reminder that freedom of speech is cultural as well as legal. Yes, the Democrats are attacking the First Amendment again, but the more immediate danger is the culture, since it is upstream of politics.

    The BSA is not the impediment to totalitarian rule that traditional marriage is, but nonetheless has been the target of the Left for many years. Why? Like the SSM issue, the Left isn’t really concerned with the plight of gays; it’s concerned as always with the seizure of power. And forcing private organizations like the BSA into line is good training for the more significant battles against larger institutions like organized religion (also under assault, of course). Also, not even smaller institutions may be allowed to oppose the will of the State.

    I wish I knew how to help the BSA, an organization to which I once belonged, resist the assault by the Left. Perhaps blowing the whistle on the true nature and intentions of the Left, as we do here on ST with articles like this one, is the most important thing we can do.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Also, the Boy Scouts stand (or have stood) for traditional morality, and liberals hate everything traditional (particularly everything good and decent, since they see themselves as superior to the peasants because of their avant-garde views).

      The war against people like Eich or Limbaugh only occasionally is successful in shutting them up (but they do have some victories). The most important reason is to intimidate others who will censor themselves rather than face the mobs of liberal Thought Police. This is commonly known as a “chilling effect”, and I lost a lot of respect for the libertarian John Stossel when he defended the results as “the market working”. If libertarians can’t defend free expression from those who would use intimidation to suppress it, what good are they?


        “If libertarians can’t defend free expression from those who would use intimidation to suppress it, what good are they?”

        I think you already know the answer to that one, Tim – we’ve spilled a lot of ink here on ST about the shortcomings of Libertarianism, “the desire to conduct politics in a vacuum” as I believe I once called it. But politics doesn’t exist in a vacuum, it’s part of our wider culture, and the Libertarian’s inability to see what’s wrong with the cultural Left using intimidation to suppress free speech until such time as the political Left repeals the First Amendment is precisely what makes him so useless in the present crisis.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *