If the Local Option happens, how will Troops deal with practical problems?

[AZMike 173]

 

http://www.sfu.ca/psyc/faculty/bartholomew/faq_files/stanley1.pdf

 

From “Gay and Bisexual Men's Age-Discrepant Childhood Sexual Experiences†by

 

Jessica L. Stanley, Kim Bartholomew, and Doug Oram, Simon Fraser University, published in The Journal of Sex Research Volume 41, Number 4, November 2004: pp. 38t-389

 

“This study examined childhood sexual abuse (CSA) in gay and bisexual men. We compared the conventional definition of CSA based on age difference with a modified definition of CSA based on perception to evaluate which definition best accounted for problems in adjustment. The sample consisted of 192 gay and bisexual men recruited from a randomly selected community sample. Men's descriptions of their CSA experiences were coded from taped interviews. Fifty men (26%) reported sexual experiences before age 17 with someone at least 5 years older, constituting CSA according to the age-based definition.â€

 

"Fifty of the 192 men (26%) reported sexual contact with someone at least 5 years older before the age of 17. On average, the men were 10.10 years of age {SD = ]4.45) at the time of sexual contact with a range of 2 to 16 years. The age of the older person ranged from 11 to 60 years with a mean of 24.61{SD = 8.70). The age difference between the youth and older person averaged 14.25 years {SD = 7.71) and ranged from 5 to 45 years difference. The vast majority of older sexual partners were men (92%) with only 4 (8%) of the 48 men who indicated the sex of the older person reporting that it was a woman. Most commonly, the sexual contact occurred only once {n - 21, 48%), although the duration of sexual contact ranged up to 12 years. Ten of the 45 men (22%) who described the duration of sexual contact reported that the sexual contact lasted for more than 1 year.â€

 

“Forty-five men indicated they had a relationship with the older person (see Table 1). Fifteen men (33%) reported that the older person was a member of their community (e.g., shopkeeper, leader of a youth organization, or babysitter). Family friends {n = 7, 16%) and strangers {n [/i]= 7, 16%) were the next most commonly mentioned relations. Sexual contact with a member of the extended fam- ily (e.g., cousins and uncles) was reported by five men (11%). Another five men (11%) described the relationship as an acquaintanceship. Four men (9%) reported sexual relations with older brothers, and two men reported sexual relations with fathers (4%).â€

 

(As you will see in the studies cited below, the rate of CSA for homosexual males as victims is much higher than for heterosexuals, and 92% of the offenders in the study above were homosexual males.)

 

[AZMike 173]

 

http://www.jimhopper.com/pdfs/Dube_(2005)_Childhood_sexual_abuse_by_gender_of_victim.pdf

 

A 2005 research study in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine (also not a religiously funded study), “Long-Term Consequences of Childhood Sexual Abuse by Gender of Victim†by Shanta R. Dube, MPH, Robert F. Anda, MD, MS, Charles L. Whitfield, MD, David W. Brown, MSPH, MS, Vincent J. Felitti, MD, Maxia Dong, MD, PhD, Wayne H. Giles, MD, MS

 

In a survey of 7970 men and 9,367 women who were members of an HMO, who were asked if they were sexually abused as children (defined as touched in a sexual way or forced to touch an adult in a sexual way, attempted sexual intercourse, or completed sexual intercourse,) 16% of males and 24.7% of females reported childhood sexual abuse.

 

Any form of sexual abuse is wrong, but of those who reported sexual abuse (1,276 of the males and 2,310 of the females), the males were more likely to have been the victims of abuse by sexual intercourse than non-intercourse sexual abuse - 41.8% were the victims of full intercourse (compared to 22.9% of the females).

 

91.9% of the girls were victimized by male(s) (heterosexual), and only 2.1% by another female. (3.6% by both male and female, 2.4% non-specified gender). So, including those who were abused by both genders, 95.5% were abused by men.

 

51% of the boys were abused exclusively by male(s) (homosexual abuse), 20.8% by females, 18.3% by both male and female, and 9.9.% not specified. So, including those who were abused by both genders, at least 69.3% were abused by men (including a much larger “non-specified†gender group that can be presumed to be mostly male. Considering that less than 5% of males are homosexual, the rates of child sexual abuse by homosexuals/bisexuals reflect that homosexuals and bisexuals molest boys at a much higher rate than they are represented in the population by even the most optimistic estimates of the LGBT community.

 

[AZMike 173]

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/nis4_report_congress_full_pdf_jan2010.pdf

 

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is mandated by Congress to do regular surveys of the rates of all forms of abuse (physical as well as sexual) against children, the National Incidence Study (NIS). The NIS reports are the standard references used by researchers and therapists in the field of child sexual abuse. NIS-4, done in 2010, found that, again, males are the most likely perpetrators of all forms of abuse, as well as sexual abuse in particular:

 

The predominance of males as the perpetrators of abuse holds true for each specific abuse category and is most pronounced for sexual abuse, where 87% of sexually abused children had male perpetrators.

 

Table 6–3 further reveals sex differences across the different perpetrator relationships, for overall abuse and for the specific abuse categories. Among all abused children, those abused by their biological parents were nearly equally likely to have been abused by mothers (51%) as by fathers (54%), but those abused by nonbiological parents or parents’ partners and those abused by other persons were much more commonly abused by males (79% and 74%). This pattern applies for emotionally abused children, where the percentages of children with male perpetrators differ across the relationship categories. However, there are no differences across relationship categories for female perpetrators of emotional abuse. Moreover, the pattern is also different among physically abused children. When biological parents or other persons were perpetrators, males were the abusers for only about one-half of the children (48% and 56%, respectively), whereas when the perpetrator was a nonbiological parent, nearly three-fourths of the children were abused by a male (74%).

 

The mirror image of this pattern is evident in the differences in percentages of children with female perpetrators across the relationship categories. When the perpetrator was a nonbiological parent, then this was a female for less than one-third of the children (29%); when the perpetrator was a biological parent or other person, then it was more likely to be a female perpetrators (for 56% and 43% of the children, respectively).

 

Among sexually abused children, the majority of perpetrators were male, regardless of their relationship to the child. However, they were much more likely to be male when they were the child’s nonbiological parent. Also, the percentage of female perpetrators differs significantly depending on their relationship to the child. Children who are sexually abused by their biological parents have the highest percentage of female perpetrators (22% versus 6% or less in other relationship categories).

 

The study does not break down stats by the victim’s gender, but male offenders were responsible for 87% of all sexual abuse; 80% of sexual abuse by parents; 97% of sexual abuse by non-biological parents or caregivers; and 86% of all sexual abuse by non-parents or caregivers. Again, women are statistically unlikely to sexually abuse boys compared to males; and as we can assume that roughly half of the children in the NIS are boys, the majority have been victimized by homosexuals or bisexuals.

 

I can cite many more research studies if you need them, EmberMike.

 

One could try to argue that, well, these people committing homosexual acts, weren't really "gay," they were actually heterosexuals who were committing homosexual acts. If you feel prone to make this argument, you should first Google the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy.

[AZMike 173]

 

Double post

[EmberMike 144]

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/nis4_report_congress_full_pdf_jan2010.pdf

 

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is mandated by Congress to do regular surveys of the rates of all forms of abuse (physical as well as sexual) against children, the National Incidence Study (NIS). The NIS reports are the standard references used by researchers and therapists in the field of child sexual abuse. NIS-4, done in 2010, found that, again, males are the most likely perpetrators of all forms of abuse, as well as sexual abuse in particular:

 

The predominance of males as the perpetrators of abuse holds true for each specific abuse category and is most pronounced for sexual abuse, where 87% of sexually abused children had male perpetrators.

 

Table 6–3 further reveals sex differences across the different perpetrator relationships, for overall abuse and for the specific abuse categories. Among all abused children, those abused by their biological parents were nearly equally likely to have been abused by mothers (51%) as by fathers (54%), but those abused by nonbiological parents or parents’ partners and those abused by other persons were much more commonly abused by males (79% and 74%). This pattern applies for emotionally abused children, where the percentages of children with male perpetrators differ across the relationship categories. However, there are no differences across relationship categories for female perpetrators of emotional abuse. Moreover, the pattern is also different among physically abused children. When biological parents or other persons were perpetrators, males were the abusers for only about one-half of the children (48% and 56%, respectively), whereas when the perpetrator was a nonbiological parent, nearly three-fourths of the children were abused by a male (74%).

 

The mirror image of this pattern is evident in the differences in percentages of children with female perpetrators across the relationship categories. When the perpetrator was a nonbiological parent, then this was a female for less than one-third of the children (29%); when the perpetrator was a biological parent or other person, then it was more likely to be a female perpetrators (for 56% and 43% of the children, respectively).

 

Among sexually abused children, the majority of perpetrators were male, regardless of their relationship to the child. However, they were much more likely to be male when they were the child’s nonbiological parent. Also, the percentage of female perpetrators differs significantly depending on their relationship to the child. Children who are sexually abused by their biological parents have the highest percentage of female perpetrators (22% versus 6% or less in other relationship categories).

 

The study does not break down stats by the victim’s gender, but male offenders were responsible for 87% of all sexual abuse; 80% of sexual abuse by parents; 97% of sexual abuse by non-biological parents or caregivers; and 86% of all sexual abuse by non-parents or caregivers. Again, women are statistically unlikely to sexually abuse boys compared to males; and as we can assume that roughly half of the children in the NIS are boys, the majority have been victimized by homosexuals or bisexuals.

 

I can cite many more research studies if you need them, EmberMike.

 

One could try to argue that, well, these people committing homosexual acts, weren't really "gay," they were actually heterosexuals who were committing homosexual acts. If you feel prone to make this argument, you should first Google the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy.

All I'm seeing here is that men make up the vast majority of the perpetrators nationally. But where does it say that they are mostly gay men? It looks like you are coming to that conclusion on your own.

 

The reality is that most of those victims are being abused men who would identify themselves as heterosexual. That's what the studies that I talked about, the ones that actually discuss the rate of homosexuality, refer to. That many of these men self-identify as straight and live their lives as straight men husbands, and fathers.

 

Banning gays from the BSA would do nothing to stop the vast majority of the men who would abuse boys. It sure wouldn't have kept a guy like Sandusky out, or the many men like him who are married and live as straight men.

 

If you've got some other evidence that gay men are more likely to be abusers, please post it. The NIS report says nothing about homosexuality. The words "gay" and "homosexual" don't even appear in that report. Simply stating that the majority of abuse perpetrators are men (which I think we all knew already) doesn't lend any credibility to the idea that gay men are more likely to abuse kids.

[EmberMike 144]

“Homosexual†is defined by Merriam-Webster, as well as most dictionaries, as

 

1.: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex

 

2: of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex.

 

Not adults, simply persons of the same sex. The heterosexual definition uses equivalent terms. Adult males of homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual orientation sometimes have sex with children. It doesn’t matter how someone defines their own orientation, as we are concerned with behavior. To try to redefine the word to benefit your argument, or to try to carve out a third or fourth preference is a logical fallacy known as “moving the goalposts.â€

 

Our concerns are, who represents a greater risk to our potential victim population?

 

Common sense would tell us that heterosexual males do not represent a risk of sexual molestation of juvenile males.

 

Common sense would tell us that heterosexual females do represent a risk of sexual molestation to boys. (Statistically, however, it is a much lower risk.)

 

Common sense would tell us that homosexual males do represent a risk of sexual molestation to boys.

 

Common sense would tell us that bisexual males do represent a risk of sexual molestation to boys.

 

So, since homosexual and bisexual males (by definition) represent the greatest risk factor of those groups to boys, our question then becomes, what is the level of that risk, and do the potential benefits of allowing homosexuals and bisexuals as scouts and scout leaders (increased self-esteem and self-actualization of the homosexuals involved) outweigh the risks of same (potential criminal sexual molestation)?

 

Here are some relevant studies, which were not commissioned by religious institutions, as per EmberMike’s request.

Why are you assuming that gay men are more likely to abuse boys than straight women? Most of the time when you see one of these reports on tv about a teacher having sex with a student, it's often a female teacher and male student. I'd assume the risk level has to be at the very least equal.

 

So would you support kicking women out of the BSA as well?

[EmberMike 144]

http://www.sfu.ca/psyc/faculty/bartholomew/faq_files/stanley1.pdf

 

From “Gay and Bisexual Men's Age-Discrepant Childhood Sexual Experiences†by

 

Jessica L. Stanley, Kim Bartholomew, and Doug Oram, Simon Fraser University, published in The Journal of Sex Research Volume 41, Number 4, November 2004: pp. 38t-389

 

“This study examined childhood sexual abuse (CSA) in gay and bisexual men. We compared the conventional definition of CSA based on age difference with a modified definition of CSA based on perception to evaluate which definition best accounted for problems in adjustment. The sample consisted of 192 gay and bisexual men recruited from a randomly selected community sample. Men's descriptions of their CSA experiences were coded from taped interviews. Fifty men (26%) reported sexual experiences before age 17 with someone at least 5 years older, constituting CSA according to the age-based definition.â€

 

"Fifty of the 192 men (26%) reported sexual contact with someone at least 5 years older before the age of 17. On average, the men were 10.10 years of age {SD = ]4.45) at the time of sexual contact with a range of 2 to 16 years. The age of the older person ranged from 11 to 60 years with a mean of 24.61{SD = 8.70). The age difference between the youth and older person averaged 14.25 years {SD = 7.71) and ranged from 5 to 45 years difference. The vast majority of older sexual partners were men (92%) with only 4 (8%) of the 48 men who indicated the sex of the older person reporting that it was a woman. Most commonly, the sexual contact occurred only once {n - 21, 48%), although the duration of sexual contact ranged up to 12 years. Ten of the 45 men (22%) who described the duration of sexual contact reported that the sexual contact lasted for more than 1 year.â€

 

“Forty-five men indicated they had a relationship with the older person (see Table 1). Fifteen men (33%) reported that the older person was a member of their community (e.g., shopkeeper, leader of a youth organization, or babysitter). Family friends {n = 7, 16%) and strangers {n [/i]= 7, 16%) were the next most commonly mentioned relations. Sexual contact with a member of the extended fam- ily (e.g., cousins and uncles) was reported by five men (11%). Another five men (11%) described the relationship as an acquaintanceship. Four men (9%) reported sexual relations with older brothers, and two men reported sexual relations with fathers (4%).â€

 

(As you will see in the studies cited below, the rate of CSA for homosexual males as victims is much higher than for heterosexuals, and 92% of the offenders in the study above were homosexual males.)

Not seeing anything here that talks about the sexual orientation of the men these boys had relationships with. I am seeing some indications that some of these men were relatives, some fathers, men who would self-identify as straight.

 

How exactly would the BSA policy have kept these men out?

[EmberMike 144]

http://www.jimhopper.com/pdfs/Dube_(2005)_Childhood_sexual_abuse_by_gender_of_victim.pdf

 

A 2005 research study in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine (also not a religiously funded study), “Long-Term Consequences of Childhood Sexual Abuse by Gender of Victim†by Shanta R. Dube, MPH, Robert F. Anda, MD, MS, Charles L. Whitfield, MD, David W. Brown, MSPH, MS, Vincent J. Felitti, MD, Maxia Dong, MD, PhD, Wayne H. Giles, MD, MS

 

In a survey of 7970 men and 9,367 women who were members of an HMO, who were asked if they were sexually abused as children (defined as touched in a sexual way or forced to touch an adult in a sexual way, attempted sexual intercourse, or completed sexual intercourse,) 16% of males and 24.7% of females reported childhood sexual abuse.

 

Any form of sexual abuse is wrong, but of those who reported sexual abuse (1,276 of the males and 2,310 of the females), the males were more likely to have been the victims of abuse by sexual intercourse than non-intercourse sexual abuse - 41.8% were the victims of full intercourse (compared to 22.9% of the females).

 

91.9% of the girls were victimized by male(s) (heterosexual), and only 2.1% by another female. (3.6% by both male and female, 2.4% non-specified gender). So, including those who were abused by both genders, 95.5% were abused by men.

 

51% of the boys were abused exclusively by male(s) (homosexual abuse), 20.8% by females, 18.3% by both male and female, and 9.9.% not specified. So, including those who were abused by both genders, at least 69.3% were abused by men (including a much larger “non-specified†gender group that can be presumed to be mostly male. Considering that less than 5% of males are homosexual, the rates of child sexual abuse by homosexuals/bisexuals reflect that homosexuals and bisexuals molest boys at a much higher rate than they are represented in the population by even the most optimistic estimates of the LGBT community.

You're making these assumptions that all of the men abusing boys are openly gay men. As already mentioned numerous times, most abusers self-identify as straight and many have heterosexual relationships.

 

You take issue with the science behind the studies I reference but I'm seeing nothing scientific in yours either. Just assumptions and generalizations.

[EmberMike 144]

I'm not seeing it, Mike. You're drwaing a lot of conclusions from anecdotal evidence. Nothing you've posted says anything about the rate of homosexuality in abusers. You're just taking other stats and assuming various other things from them.

 

Where's the study that says simply that gay men are more likely to abuse kids than straight men? If it's just that simple, surely there is some evidence to support that idea.

 

I have to add, also, that your assumption that all men who abuse boys are gay is flawed. People who abuse children have obvious mental disorders, regardless of their own gender and sexual preference. Some mental health professionals go so far as to call those kinds of attractions a "third sexual orientation". I don't think I'd agree with that, I think they're just screwed up individuals, but nevertheless there is a flaw in thinking that all abusers can be defined in their sexual preference only by the gender of who they abuse.

 

And I'll add this question: where's the outrage over straight men in the GSA? We can't even identify most men who would be abusers in the BSA because they self-identify as straight. But straight men in the GSA are pretty easy to identify, and they would readily admit that they're attracted to females, so why aren't you pushing to get them out? Why isn't anyone doing that? They seem like the highest risk category, people who openly admit an attraction to females and are in an organization that is full of girls. One of the studies you posted above even indicates that girls are more likely to be victims of childhood sexual abuse than boys. Why are gays in the BSA perceived as a higher risk than straight men in the GSA, when statistically girls are more likely to be abused?

 

The issue of abuse in the BSA will not be solved by banning gays. It hasn't helped so far, while the ban has always existed. We'd do more good probably to ban married men than gays, since they're more likely to be abusers. Obviously I'm being facetious here, but the point is that a continued ban on gays doesn't help anyone when it comes to the issue of abuse.

[AZMike 173]

I'll respond on all your comments at once, here.

 

 

You asked, "Why are you assuming that gay men are more likely to abuse boys than straight women?" It is not an assumption, it is supported by the evidence. Read the cites I posted. Most of the people who sexually abuse either boys or girls are men. That is a simple fact, which is supported by the NIS study. See the cite. It is also a fact that that the vast majority of the offenders who specifically sexually abuse boys are males. This is supported by the the study in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine. See the cite. Those instances of abuse are homosexual acts, by definition and common usage.

 

You have then shifted your argument to claim that, well, maybe straight women could be more likely to abuse boys, so we shouldn't exclude gays if we are not willing to include straight women. That is also not supported by the evidence. Again, see the cite from the AJPM study. I posted these cites in response to your request for more studies, ones that were not "religious."

 

Your anecdotal sense from news stories you have seen that there is a burgeoning population of female offenders against boys, or your unsupported personal belief that "the risk level has to be at the very least equal" is not supported by the research you requested.

 

You are of course free to ignore the research and believe whatever you desire, but if you want to engage with the argument, you should at least read the research you requested.

 

Instead, you have posted a reference to a 1993 study (the original of which I have read), which you presumably read about in the first reference you found when you Googled the subject. That is, however, a testament to the original poster's knowledge of search engine optimization rather than the relevance of a 20-year old research study which is fundamentally flawed in its premises. It is flawed because it is examining a group of victims that skew toward those much younger than our victim population; because the study was done by examining medical charts for physical signs of molestation (such as inflammation or tearing of the anus or vaginal tissues, or signs of an STD), which may identify sexual offenses against the very young, but which is inadequate to detect sexual offenses against more physically mature minors, and which can include acts such as fondling and fellatio, which will not usually be physically detected in the victim. A properly conducted juvenile forensic interview, performed using court-accepted protocols, will be able to effectively identify both such homosexual and heterosexual child sexual assaults, but these protocols were still in their infancy at the time when this study was conducted and were not used. It also relies on a perpetrator identifying himself or herself as gay or bisexual to the clinician, which is unlikely in an individual who is already looking at criminal charges and would be likely to see this as supporting evidence against his own interest, especially back in 1993.

 

In short, the 20 year-old study you cited, which is frequently used by those advocating for gay adoption and gay access to youths, is quite simply junk science.

 

You further state in reference to the study on childhood sexual assault against homosexual men, "Not seeing anything here that talks about the sexual orientation of the men these boys had relationships with. I am seeing some indications that some of these men were relatives, some fathers, men who would self-identify as straight."

 

Let's try it again. If you are a male who has sex with another male, that is a homosexual act. It is not a heterosexual act. If you are homosexual or bisexual and claim you are exclusively heterosexual, that is not a self-identification, that is not your "sexual orientation," that is simply a lie. "Sexual orientation" is not based on what you say, it is based on what you do. Behavior is the truth. If we are looking at homosexuals as being the (overwhelmingly) greatest risk to sexually molest a boy (which the medical research cited above, as well as numerous other studies, clearly supports), simply declaring yourself as homosexual does not reduce your risk potential. It just means you are more honest about being in the group that has the greatest risk potential. That really shouldn't be a hard thing to understand.

 

"How exactly would the BSA policy have kept these men out?"

 

It would have kept out the portion of men who have self-identified as being in the greatest risk group. Other means should be used to protect against homosexual men and bisexual men who are concealing their sexual orientation, who are also dangerous. These means include effective background checks and reference interviews. They will not, unfortunately, be effective at reducing all risk, but nothing is.

 

You also ask, "Where's the study that says simply that gay men are more likely to abuse kids than straight men? If it's just that simple, surely there is some evidence to support that idea."

 

You are pursuing a strawman here, as that is not relevant to what we are discussing. We are concerned in this instance with whether homosexual men represent a threat to juvenile males. Clearly, they do. I can cite some studies that show what percentage of self-identified gay males have stated that they have had sex with minors, but let me ask you first - what would you consider a level of sexual contact with minors within the gay population that you would consider sufficient to deny such a population access to a youth organization which conducts activities like the Boy Scouts?

 

You opine, "I have to add, also, that your assumption that all men who abuse boys are gay is flawed. People who abuse children have obvious mental disorders, regardless of their own gender and sexual preference. Some mental health professionals go so far as to call those kinds of attractions a "third sexual orientation". I don't think I'd agree with that..."

 

I agree with you, that is a stupid concept and clearly politically motivated. But if so, why bring it up as an argument?

 

"I think they're just screwed up individuals, but nevertheless there is a flaw in thinking that all abusers can be defined in their sexual preference only by the gender of who they abuse."

 

Why?

 

 

 

[acco40 95]

Gents, again, the reason for the BSA policy on homosexual members has absolutely nothing to do with safety. It has to do with self-perceived morality.

[acco40 95]

Statistically, they found that the vast majority of those sexually abusing young males, ages 6 through 17 were right-handed. Therefore, I propose banning all self-proclaimed "righties" from the BSA! Protect our youth!

[DigitalScout 75]

AZMike - here's the flaw in your logic:

 

"Lemons are yellow. Lemons are fruit. Therefore all fruit is yellow." ... is equivalent to ...

 

"Homosexual sex is practiced by homosexuals. Homosexual sex is practiced by pedophiles. Therefore all homosexuals are pedophiles." This latter statement summarizes your position, correct?

[AZMike 173]

AZMike - here's the flaw in your logic:

 

"Lemons are yellow. Lemons are fruit. Therefore all fruit is yellow." ... is equivalent to ...

 

"Homosexual sex is practiced by homosexuals. Homosexual sex is practiced by pedophiles. Therefore all homosexuals are pedophiles." This latter statement summarizes your position, correct?

You should probably refer to what I wrote instead of trying to rephrase it as a strawman argument, as I am the best reference for what I said. If you think I wrote "all homosexuals are pedophiles," or in fact discussed the medical diagnosis of pedophilia, please reference that.

 

Go back and read what I actually wrote, and please don't mistake the map for the territory. Once again, we are not talking about "pedophilia," or any mental box you have constructed in which mental concepts about rigid modes of behavior can be neatly organized. We are talking about adults who have sex with juveniles. In the environment with which we are concerned, the greatest risk, based on the statistical evidence, is from homosexual and bisexual males. This is sufficient reason for a private organization to make a decision to deny them access to the juvenile males for whom they act in loco parentis. This is also consistent with the stated moral values of the organization.

 

EmberMike essentially said that having homosexual sex with boys is bad. Gays aren't inherently bad. So gays aren't likely to have sex with children. Again, it's the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

[DigitalScout 75]

AZMike - here's the flaw in your logic:

 

"Lemons are yellow. Lemons are fruit. Therefore all fruit is yellow." ... is equivalent to ...

 

"Homosexual sex is practiced by homosexuals. Homosexual sex is practiced by pedophiles. Therefore all homosexuals are pedophiles." This latter statement summarizes your position, correct?

I read what you wrote and noticed that you never use the term "pedophilia" or "pedophiles" to describe adult sexual interest in children. Do you believe there is a psychological disorder called pedophilia?