Editors of USA Today should be ashamed of themselves for publishing a disgusting and inaccurate article by a known bigot that
warns opening up the Boy Scouts to gay men will lead to pedophilia. Robert Knight, who formerly worked for the Family Research Council, a Southern Poverty Law Center hate group, penned the poisonous piece.
The editorial board of this newspaper should realize that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from facts. Knight should never have been given carte blanche to libel an entire group of people, who had no opportunity to defend themselves from his pernicious lies. Knight is no expert, as he fancies himself to be, just an extremist who has little knowledge of, or regard for, the human beings he so casually maligns.
To begin with, Knight falsely claims that allowing gay people will cause much harm to the institution.
This would destroy the Boy Scouts, a bastion of traditional values. Without parental trust, the Boy Scouts, which was founded in 1910 and has been instrumental in helping millions of boys transition to manhood, would implode like a popped balloon.
To the contrary, it would strengthen the group by promoting honesty and teach Boy Scouts to respect differences in other people. Such critical lessons will only better individual Boy Scouts and make them superior human beings. It will also thin the ranks of those who define themselves by whom they can exclude — rather than include. People of such poor character and distorted ethics only bring down the Boy Scouts brand and retard the development of youth into upstanding men.
Next, Knight predictably uses the thoroughly debunked pedophile card:
The policy change would be a real and present danger to the boys, as vividly illustrated by the still-simmering molestation scandal involving priests. As the Vatican works mightily to prevent further incidents, the Boy Scouts seem to be on the verge of going in the other direction.
A 1994 book, Scout’s Honor by investigative reporter Patrick Boyle, revealed 1,800 cases in which Scout leaders had been dismissed for abusing boys. In 2010, a jury awarded $18.5 million to a man abused by a pedophilic Scoutmaster. Given all this, it’s unfathomable for the Scouts to flirt with the idea of opening their ranks to males attracted to other males. Some of the perpetrators were married, but they obviously had same-sex inclinations.
By sleazily conflating homosexuality with child molestation, Bob Knight misses a key point. In the Catholic Church and in the Boy Scouts openly gay people do not exist. Thus, it is the darkness of the closet that attracts discreet perverts, many of whom are married men with children, who can hide in the shadows and exploit their access to children — all while posing as family men or holy priests. It is quite interesting that the heinous child rape scandals that are epidemic in the Catholic Church, for example, hardly exist in gay community centers and churches.
Furthermore, pedophilia has zero to do with homosexuality or heterosexuality. Gay and straight men and women are oriented
towards having sexual and romantic relations with adults — and find the idea of sex with children nauseating. A 2000 study by Dr. Michael R. Stevenson concluded, “A gay man is no more likely than a straight man to perpetrate sexual activity on children.” A 1994 study by Dr. Carole Jenny found that less than one-percent of the children in her study were abused by a gay man or lesbian. In 1978, Drs. Nicholas Groth and Jean Birnbaum found that none of the 175 molesters in their study had an exclusively homosexual adult orientation.
Why didn’t Knight mention these studies? Perhaps, because he has spent his entire, pathetic career twisting science in a shameful effort to stigmatize LGBT people. It is disgraceful that USA Today would give a platform to one with Knight’s grotesque track-record and dishonorable reputation.
Finally, while I applaud the Boy Scouts for taking affirmative steps, leaving decisions on admitting gay Scouts to local chapters is unacceptable. Whether a vulnerable gay teenager is honored or humiliated, praised or made into a pariah, should not depend on the luck of where they are born. All Scouts should be treated with dignity and respect — and none should be tormented because they have the misfortune of growing up in an anachronistic town with small minded Scout leaders. Discrimination is wrong — period — and a good Scout chapter leader should never impose his misguided or malevolent values onto a gay youth who wants nothing more than to join his peers by participating in this organization.
It is time that the Boy Scouts finally become morally straight and make a clean break from the past by accepting gay members with no exceptions. If bigoted people like Knight slither away, good riddance, this would result in the organization only becoming stronger.









The BSA is now taking feedback from all over the U.S. Here are instructions on what to do: If you call 972-580-2330, a rep asks: “Are you FOR or against the change in policy?” Just say FOR and you’re done! Can’t get thru? Email nationalsupportcenter@scouting.org. It’s as simple as that. Let’s get it done!!
I just called the number and after being on hold for a minute or so I got a rep who asked if I was calling about a technical issue. When I said I was calling about the policy change, she said, “I’m sorry, we cannot help you with that; have a good day.” Is there another number to call about this, or are they no longer accepting comments?
“Child rape scandals… hardly exist in gay community centers…” Really? Then I suppose you’ve never heard of Adam Flanders then, or his editorial letter.
Great job Wing Nut, you found one. That makes it completely equal to the Boy Scouts and Catholic Church. Well done.
Richard — there will always be examples one can cherry pick, especially if they are an a*****e looking to distort the facts. However, naming one or two people is significantly different than the $2.5 BILLION the Vatican has spent on their child rape scandals.
Thinking people get the difference.
This is the last straw for this “rag” of a newspaper. I wonder if they would permit an op-ed about the Catholic Church and its never ending pedophile priest problem that continues to this day going on all over the world. The fact that this so called church has gone out of its way to protect these pedophile priests would make for an additional op-ed piece. Many newspapers are going the way of the model T anyway so I won’t take it too seriously. I do promise however, never to buy USA Today ever again. This does however, fit into the same category as that Dr Oz special whereby he brought on quacks to promote the idea that you can “pray away the gay.” Same kind of hypocrisy!
Richard the bigot said ““Child rape scandals… hardly exist in gay community centers…” Really? Then I suppose you’ve never heard of Adam Flanders…”.
That’s just like you bigots, you search desperately for one or two isolated incidences, pass them around from bigot to bigot and post on blogs about them pretending such incidences are commonplace – you’re all just a bunch of bigoted liars.
You bigots did the same thing with the handful of incidences of christians allegedly being treated unfairly as a result of gay marriage and/or anti-discrimination laws. You passed around the same tired old 3 or 4 incidences from years ago and pretended christians were being overwhelmed with their “freedom of religion” being attacked. You’re just a bunch of BS’ers extraordinaire.
One class d misdemeanor offense in the state if Maine, resulting in three months jail time, is just like the pedophile scandals that have resulted in lengthy PRISON terms for catholic priests, pedophile sandals documents over CENTURIES.
no one claims every gay person is perfect. But a number of people claim all gay people are sick and dangerous.
Richard, re you ever goingto deal with yor self hatred, or just continue to inflict on the rest of us?
I think the thing that’s telling with the Flanders case is that 1.) It was so deeply embedded in that organization, over several years and many people and 2.) Flanders, a gay guy formerly involved in that group, worked tirelessly to cover it up after Mass Resistance latched on to it. Being raped is one thing, but how many young teenagers would actually come forward when they’re in consenting (as it applies here, not legally) relationships with adults? Not many I would presume. This is one solitary case, you’re all correct in that. But I’m inclined to believe that it is a more regular occurrence due to the nature of the situation. And how many parents are unaware? I think the average parent wouldn’t have any inkling of the kind of danger there, because the media tries to paint this oh-so-wonderful portrait of being gay.
Wing Nut, again, you’ve taken a singular case an conflated it to the universal based on an “inclination” you have. You still can’t seem to see the fallacy of your statement. Think before you post.
Right…and rape NEVER happens between a straight man and a young girl…ok, thanx for clearing that up, creep.
“But I’m inclined to believe that it is a more regular occurrence due to the nature of the situation.”
You are inclined to believe it because you are an ignoramus, not because you possess evidence.
If the Boy Scouts of America were genuine in their concerns about pedophile activity in the organization, then they would also ban women from scouting, as they might be hetrosexual pedophiles. They are showing everyone the perfect example of prejudice.
Meanwhile, attitudes like the ones expressed in USAToday have resulted in another teen suicide, and as always, the FRC has given no indication that it cares.
Wayne, why is my comment awaiting moderation?
Wingnut, same question. When are you goingto deal with your self hatrrd instead of inflicting it on the rest of us?
So Richard, by implication are you saying that there should be a ban on heterosexual male teachers teaching girls, and heterosexual female teachers teaching boys? I mean, by your rationale, there’s always a risk…
Equality for all ,that means the boy scouts too.. For the fearful.. you can always have your
son join s choir group, from a local church, for safety reasons of course..
Richard, you are deplorable. Utterly shameless in your transparent, bold intellectual dishonesty.
Why is it that every time a male adult molests a female child, or, say, a female teacher is found to have had sexual relations with an underage male student, you straight folks aren’t put through the kind of degradation you insist on putting us through…because of isolated incidents not involving gay persons but PEDOPHILE persons?
It’s insufferable, your bigotry disguised as reason, your conflating homosexual with pedophile.
YOU, sir, are part of the collective tenor that brings gay kids to take their own lives. YOU, sir, are part of the collective tenor that gets us chased down streets, often running for our lives. YOU, sir, are perpetuating evil, not us.
I read the answer to your question years ago. I forget the exact quote, but it was something like, “When a straight person commits a moral wrong, the public and media response is, ‘Wow. That guy is sure f***ed up.’ When a gay person commits a similar moral wrong, the public and media response is, ‘Wow. Gays are sure f***ed up.’” This logic also explains Richard’s “inclination,” mentioned earlier in this post.
Wayne – just a couple of quick points here -
First off, BSA doesn’t operate via chapters, it operates via councils, which typically cover part of a state (geographically) and then within the council there are individual troops. In a small state like mine, CT, there may be only 1-2 councils but in bigger states there are more. I’m still not sure what BSA is proposing to do about the issue of “who gets to make the decision,” but it would probably at this point be more workable to have the councils make the decision, rather than the individual troops. There are an awful lot of troops, and it seems like it would start getting incredibly complicated for each troop to decide for itself. That would mean that every single troop would have to “work through” all those issues and wow, talk about detracting from the mission…
Second, although I understand your point that it would be better for “the policy” to be lifted as to all U.S. Boy Scouts, please know what an incredible step forward this is for BSA. Those of us who’ve been involved in this issue did not, actually, ever think we’d see the day that BSA would consider even giving councils the choice. It is, at least in my opinion, a great “way forward” where the national organization can permit councils to reflect community standards. These are going to be different in different areas, but at least for now it’s a wonderful incremental step. I guess I’m the gal who was also happy to see civil union, back in the days when that was considered radical so…
Richard the bigot said “This is one solitary case, you’re all correct in that. But I’m inclined to believe that it is a more regular occurrence due to the nature of the situation.”.
You’re inclined to believe that because you want to promote the idea that all gays are bad people regardless of the truth – the nature of the situation has nothing to do with it.
I guess I find it really strange why any gay would want to join the Boy Scouts anyways, when they don’t believe in nor want to follow the morals and principles of the Boy Scouts. It’s best for gays not to join the Boy Scouts because they believe that homosexuality is a sin and that you can go to hell for this sin, if you do not repent of it, so why would any gay even want to be part of this oganization? It’s not really a good thing for anyone to join an organization, whose morals, beliefs and principles do not agree with your own because you will corrupt yourself, if you do. My best advice for gays is to stay away from this organization. It’s not a good thing for a gay to join the Boy Scouts. Gays are not going to be welcomed in the Boy Scouts when their morals believe that homosexuality is a sin.
@Greg: Based on your reasoning, blacks shouldn’t have fought for integration since whites didn’t believe they were equals. Why would blacks want to eat, shop, live where they weren’t welcome?
Because they didn’t want to be defined or limited by the beliefs of others.