Tackaberry: Liddick’s argument full of red herrings
According Liddick’s recent piece finding major fault with the Boy Scouts of America’s (BSA) decision to allow “openly gay scouts” in the organization is that “the principal identifier for homosexuals is sexual attraction to, and intimacy with, persons of the same sex.” I reckon he thinks that their roles as brothers, sisters, children, breadwinners, volunteers, soldiers, law-abiding citizens and, yes, even parents means very little … only their sexual attractions. I am certain that Liddick would hold heterosexuals to the same amazingly narrow standards.
He goes on to comment that the BSA “accepting persons self-identifying with a behavior that, given the age of the average Boy Scout, would qualify as statutory rape in at least 40 states.” This is where Liddick and his ilk really go over the top. First, if two underage boys acted upon their attraction to one another, wouldn’t both, in most states, be guilty of statutory rape (“Romeo and Juliet” laws)? Second, this supposed offense assumes that among these participants, one is the predator and the other a non-consenting victim. According to the Scouts’ own records released by court order in October 2012, 1,200 “alleged” child abuse (i.e., adult on child) cases were documented in a 20-year period between 1965 and 1985. No child-on-child cases were documented. Yet another of Liddick’s “red herrings.”
Further, Liddick seems quite worried about the possibility of homosexual adult leaders in the BSA. Due to the fact that my mother was a Den Mother in my Cub Scout pack, I suppose all my fellow Cubs and their parents should have been really worried about her. Let’s face, pedophiles are pedophiles, no matter their sexual orientation. And I, for one, don’t want any of these folks in any organization involving children.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.