I see no problem with boy's organisations getting more funding, since
all funding of government programmes is ultimately paid for by taxing
men. What is really tragic is that the boy scout's movement needed to
do this to get funding, which is presumably because the government
thinks funding boys won't get them re-elected. Presumably the
government needs the money to provide for a mother who has just lied to
the authorities about who really hurt the kids, and boys scouts don't
get a look in.

What's especially offensive to me is that they've been attacked by one
group, notably militant homosexuals, merely because the boy scouts
movement has felt the need to protect itself from predatory old queenie
deviant attacks on children. It's hardly surprising that they had to do
this, bearing in mind the other areas where homosexual deviants have
been abusing their authority in a male only environment, ie the church.


I'm sure the percentage of paedophiles is tiny, but this doesn't mean
the incidence of abuse would be, and I've of course an enormous
tolerance for their dirty deviant behaviour, (unlike some people who
are offended by grown men doing things such as licking shit off cocks
in public parks after dark, or sucking each other off in toilets were
children may have to visit,) however...

Presumably the boys scouts movement simply feels it's too much a
litigious risk, or that some parents would feel these militant
homosexuals feel their rights to go camp it up with children, are more
important than the rectal integrity of the said 11 year old boy of such
(or boys) who might be insufficiently strong to prevent the leader from
participating in a game of dicky back ride under the protection of a
tent, and a bit of healthy intimidation and embarrassment. Whilst I'm
sure most of the group of what some people would term uphill gardeners
keep it tolerably inoffensive by licking the shit of their lover's arse
out of the public view mostly, I guess some people feel that those they
consider screaming chutney ferret's would think there's nothing like a
fresh boy's arse to some homosexual paedophiles, even if they are tiny
in number.

It seems to me the only way of protecting boys from sexual abuse it to
only allow people who don't find males attractive to be in charge. So
this gives us confirmed lesbians, notably real ones (ie ugly dungaree
wearers, so the boys aren't tempted themselves,), and confirmed
heterosexual men.

I wonder if these same homosexual militants are also campaigning
against schools to force them to take old heterosexual men with a
previously high incidence of promiscuity, (say married men who've been
done for kerb crawling,) as carers for 13 year old girls at guide camp,
or to be the locker room coach for girls' sports teams. I suspect not.
Mark you, whilst I'm sure that gay dads really care for their children,
as do the vast majority of gay people, I suspect the incidence of such
children of their own, is considerably lower amongst the highly
promiscuous militant gay scene across the States, than it is amongst
what your average Utah resident would call "normal decent people," or
"an aberration in God's world."

I can understand how gay men feel aggrieved about the scout's
exclusion. More than anyone else, it is them who is taxed to pay for
everyone else. They have a shorter lifespan than women, never get
married couple's allowance, and don't get any tax they pay spent on
them. However, it's not like they can't deny that old gay men exist who
prey on freshness of youth. You've only got to spend couple of
morning's in the changing rooms at Chelsea Town hall, London, to see
the exchanges between old rich, and youthful innocence. Whilst it
doesn't bother me, I'm aware of no end of men blissfully ignorant, who
were they to realise they were surrounded by men in the showers
cottaging in front of them and their kids, would be pulling out the
machetes.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/18/05 1:24:45 PM ---