Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MarkNoel

Cradle of Liberty Council loses land deal with Philadelphia

Recommended Posts

Laurie,

 

That was an absolutely excellent post. And believe me, I admire you and all of the volunteers across this country that care about something greater than themselves. To be honest, I didnt give the necessary thought to how much this must be affecting the volunteers of your council, your program, and the Scouts. And they are normally my first concern. I hope you can see that I think no less of the program that you offer or the people in the middle of all this. I took a step back and considered what if it was happening here. It certainly would be very disheartening. Have strength and know that we all believe in you and support each and every Scout of Cradle of Liberty Council.

 

cjmiam

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we all believe in you and support each and every Scout of Cradle of Liberty CouncilExcept, of course, the gay one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very funny tjhammer, I was trying to be sincere but should have known better. Guess I should just stick to my argumentative side.

 

What if there is no victim? Obviously human rights are violated when someone gets raped or murdered. But lets just use a 25-year-old guy and a 16-year-old young man as an example. We could probably even drop down to 13 or 14, because everyone knows they certainly already have many opinions and a mind of their own. Now lets say that the younger enjoys his relationship very much with the 25 year old. The he doesnt know any better argument cant be used anymore, because our court system has already set precedents that they do know better by trying them as adults and throwing them in jail. Now lets put all of this together using arguments found in all my posts

 

Pedophiles are born as pedophiles

Pedophilia is not a disease

Pedophilia is an act of love

There are no victims

 

Now remember, I am not necessarily insinuating that gays are pedophiles. What I am saying is that they're arguments and justification seems quite similar. But I would like to know where the line is drawn. What is the magical age that a relationship is acceptable? Is the 25-year-old only attracted to those 18 and older or might he find a 17-year-old attractive as well. Or is the magical age16, 15, 14...?

 

cjmiam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.Pedophiles are born as pedophiles

2.Pedophilia is not a disease

3.Pedophilia is an act of love

4.There are no victims

 

well, first off, under the law there ARE victims - any unemancipated minor in such an entaglement is a victim. let's not forget the school ma'arms and their boy toys of recent notoriety. even tho the kids involved seem old enough to be non-victims, they certainly ended pretty messed up.

 

but let's try some paraphrasing.

 

1.Downs babies are born as Downs babies.

2.Downs syndrome is not a... no, better stop here.

 

1.Aggressors are born as aggressors

2.Aggressive murder is not a disease

3.Murder is an act of survival

4.whoops

 

1.Pedophiles are born as pedophiles

2.Pedophilia is not a disease

3.Pedophilia is an act of rape so

4.there are victims

 

1.SOME gays are born as gays

2.Homosexuality is not a disease

3.Mature adult homosexual behavior between consenting adults is an act of love that doesn't increas the population

4.There are no victims

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait a sec. The purpose of this little exercise is to get the law and public opinion changed. You cant argue that a law should be a law, because its a law. In my example there are no victims, no one is being forced to do anything. In fact for the sake of argument lets assume that the 16-year-old initiated the relationship.

 

Tjhammer, why did you remove the line about why there would/should be a difference in ages between gay or straight relationships?

 

Littlebillie, not sure what you are driving at with Down Syndrome. Im not suggesting that if you are born with something, that it means its not a disease. Im saying that part of the homosexual argument is that they dont have a choice, therefore pedophiles can use the same argument. In your second example, human rights certainly have been infringed upon. I think I covered the third example, no force has been used. Finally, with number four you are getting somewhere, but let me just change a few words

 

1.SOME pedophiles are born as pedophiles

2.Pedophilia is not a disease

3.Mature adult pedophile behavior between a consenting adult and a consenting 16-year-old is an act of love that doesn't increase the population

4.There are no victims

 

The only additional concept one must accept is that the 16-year-old has the ability to make the decision on his own. And I believe that our court system has established that they do by waving them into adult court and trying them as adults.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, CJ, I'll agree with you. Anything is possible. In the future we could decriminalize pedophilia, rape, murder or anything else. It's also possible that civilization as we know it gets wiped out by an asterorid. But beyond that, I don't understand your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The only additional concept one must accept is that the 16-year-old has the ability to make the decision on his own. And I believe that our court system has established that they do by waving them into adult court and trying them as adults." if the age of consent is 16, then the act is not pedophilia in the eyes of that state.

 

to some extent the line may be seen as arbitrary - there are different ages. but there is a huge difference between mutually consenting ADULTS and the picture you are drawing. Arguably, even if the CHILD *seems* willing, the law does not recognize that CHILD'S ability or right to make such a call - I have, all along, excluded the emancipated minor - which is also why the kid can't sign a contract, either.

 

and any act that takes criminal advantage of a child - EVEN IF THE CHILD IS WILLING - cannot be be called harmless.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point??? Its simple. It seems that some of you believe there is a problem with an adult having sex with a minor. Would I dare say that it might even be a moral absolute? So your possible moral absolutes are justifiable, but mine are not? If the age of consent (as tjhammer showed in his handy chart) says its okay in New Mexico for an adult to have sexual relations with a minor at the age of thirteen, then we should allow homosexuals in the Scouting program in New Mexico? It seems to follow that if we did, according to the law, it would be perfectly legal for the adult leader to consider most of his troop fair game. And you have no problem with that in New Mexico? Why does the law differ from state to state? Are children in New Mexico somehow more mature? Are they more capable of making that decision than say children in Oregon?

 

Im sorry but there is something very messed up here.

 

cjmiam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of derailing the current discussion and steering it back towards the original topic of the thread, I'd like to offer the following news on the situation in Philadelphia:

 

Here's a local news article on the Cradle of Liberty's loss of its land deal. For those folks who were convinced earlier that CoL never actually intended to buck the National policy, you might be interested in the quote here from the CoL's Scout Exec, Bill Dwyer:

 

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/local/6873849.htm

 

"""

Calling the meeting "constructive," mayoral chief of staff Joyce

Wilkerson conceded she did not know what kind of policy statement could meet

the apparently conflicting goals.

"That's the stuff we're working on. What's clear is that it's not

just passing magic language. It's how it gets implemented," she said.

William T. Dwyer III, executive director of the Cradle of Liberty

Council, said after the meeting: "There's no easy answers here. We're

getting calls from the right not to give in to the radical left. There is

no middle ground. You wouldn't believe the magnitude of homophobic bigotry

out there."

"""

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Would I dare say that it might even be a moral absolute?" Probably not while the wedding of a 12 year old Gypsy princess is in the news...

 

"for an adult to have sexual relations with a minor at the age of thirteen, then we should allow homosexuals in the Scouting program in New Mexico?" well, since you pose it as a question, the answer is currently no - the BSA has rejected the local standards premise, maintaining their OWN absolute.

 

btw, the gays I know - family folk from school - are all repulsed by the idea of pedophilia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Laurie, are you able to post the text of 1) the 1928 ordinance granting COL use of the property in question; and 2) the Fair Practices ordinance COL is alleged to be violating? I find it hard to believe that the 1928 ordinance doesn't grandfather COL and protect it from the Fair Practices ordinance.

 

I sent this same request to the reporter at the paper, Linda Harris, but so far no response from her. Sad, I used to think the press had an obligation to present us with the pertinent facts so that we, the public, could make informed decisions about public issues. Nowadays, it seems, the press is little more than yellow jounalism - let's rile up the public so they /buy more papers/watch our broadcast/listen to our talk show/visit our website/. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

littlebillie,

 

But if the homosexual activists had their way, local standards would be implemented. So then, 13-year-olds would be fair game in New Mexico. My question was hypothetical in nature. I was asking if the age of consent in N.M. is 13 and we allow gays in Boy Scouts in that state, wouldn't it follow that they could see most of the troop as fair game according to the law? And is this okay with everyone?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cjmiam, your argument is absurd. A Scout leader (gay or straight) would be prohibited from engaging in sexual acts with youth members regardless of what the age of consent is. By your argument, if the age of consent is 13 in a state, a 14-year-old female Venturer would be "fair game" for an adult male heterosexual crew advisor, because his "sexual orientation" attracts him to females. Of course, that is not the case.

 

Scouting policy takes precedence over the law in this situation because it is more restrictive. (And I am not so sure that under the law in any given state, the "age of consent" even applies to an adult youth group leader and a minor group member. I don't have time to check right now. But as a general matter, an adult who is entrusted (even temporarily) with the care of a minor has special responsibilities under the law.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...