That is an incredibly stupid argument, but it's not the one I was referring to. I was referring to the argument that a small number of rapes was worth the legal change.
I don't know what's more obvious, Mowgli being the first person to reply, or the fact that nobody even read the link where it says that gay adults are still prohibited from being scout leaders
I did read the link but there's more than just scout leaders in those tents.I don't know what's more obvious, Mowgli being the first person to reply, or the fact that nobody even read the link where it says that gay adults are still prohibited from being scout leaders
That's just a high risk situation, because there are adults that go on trips who aren't troop leaders.
THe gay community will rationalize it like.
well only ten kids a year are getting their culos blasted as a result of the lifted ban. Most gay troop leaders are great people.
So there's a greater chance these adults will prey on Boy Scouts who are gay? I'm not sure I follow where you're going with this.
..... you're not sure where I'm going with that?
The question mark was there because I wasn't sure if that's what you meant
I was just saying that some people believe that having gay men controlling kids in those situations; might increase the rate of butt rape of a few children.
Exactly... you feel that it was a small number of rapes, which is why you structure your argument the way you do.
I do not feel like there's a such thing as a small number of rapes. I also don't believe in reversing legal changes that will increase the numbers.
I don't know what's more obvious, Mowgli being the first person to reply, or the fact that nobody even read the link where it says that gay adults are still prohibited from being scout leaders
Sad day for those kids. Now they're going to get violated by a homosexual.