I find it downright hypocritical that the same people who are calling for Josh Duggar’s head, even saying he’s not fit to be raising children, are the very ones who are advocating aggressively for openly homosexual Boy Scout leaders, claiming that it’s their “right.”
Let me speak candidly with no concern as to whether this offends: This is not about gay “rights.” This is about what is best for the boys. To think otherwise is the epitome of shortsighted narcissism.
This same attitude surfaced in a recent article by a gay writer claiming that the current ban on gay blood donors was “discriminatory” and made him feel bad.
Sorry again if this offends, but when it comes to the blood bank, the issue is not how giving blood makes the donor feel. The issue is having safe blood to keep people alive.
Many years ago, a group I was with was part of a blood drive, so I was glad to do my part, signing up to give blood. But when I filled out the questionnaire and they learned that before I was a follower of Jesus, I shot drugs (1970-71), I was told I couldn’t donate.
I was a little disappointed, since I wanted to be part of our joint effort and help others, but the last thought in my mind was, “That’s not fair! That was a long time ago. How dare you hold that against me!”
My only thought was, “Obviously, they know what’s best, and it would be horrific to give blood that could be tainted.”
I’ll let others debate the science as to whose blood is and is not safe, but it’s the attitude I’m addressing: This is about the health of the recipient of the blood, not the feelings of the potential donor.
It’s the same thing when it comes to whether openly gay men should serve as Boy Scout leaders (an inevitable development that I and many others warned would be next). The issue is not how these potential Scout leaders feel. The issue is what’s best for the kids.
Yet what we hear over and again is that it’s not “fair” to deprive these men of their “right” to lead the troops, especially since many of them grew up in the Boy Scouts.
Sadly, we know that, without openly homosexual Scout leaders, there has been a well-documented (and even better covered-up) history of sexual abuse of Boy Scouts by their leaders. So why open the door even further to potential predators (let alone ask what kind of role models we want for the boys)?
Am I saying that your average gay man wants to be a Scout leader so he can abuse boys? Absolutely not.
But I’m saying that, just as you don’t have heterosexual men leading Girl Scout troops (since straight males are attracted to females and relate to them a certain way), you don’t have homosexual men leading Boy Scout troops – if, in fact, what matters most is the safety and well-being of the children.
One gay advocate on Twitter claimed that heterosexual abuse of children was 11 times greater (in total) than homosexual abuse of children. What he didn’t realize was that according to his own stats, a gay man was almost five times more likely to abuse a child than a straight man (since there is roughly one homosexual for every 50 heterosexuals).
Other criminology studies I have read confirm these statistics, but even if a gay man was no more likely to abuse a child than a straight man, common sense tells you that having openly gay Scout leaders is not in the best interest of the kids, even if many of them would be fine leaders overall.
The very fact that they are openly gay also means their sexuality has now been injected into the Scouts, which cannot be in the best interest of the great majority of the boys involved.
To repeat: It’s about the best interests of the kids, not about the feelings of the gay adults.
The same holds true when it comes to gay couples raising kids, especially bringing them into the world through anonymous sperm donors or surrogate mothers, in which case the gay parents are willingly depriving that child of a connection to their mother or father.
Whose feelings do they have in mind – the child’s or their own?
I’m sure many gays and lesbians long to have kids, just as heterosexuals do, and I’m sure that many of them are devoted parents, weeping for joy when a baby comes into their lives.
But do they genuinely believe that the very best thing for that child is to deprive them willfully of having a mother or father?
Even feminist icon Germaine Greer recently commented, “Sometimes I think that really the problem is the concept of motherhood, which we can’t give any real structure to. Sir Elton John and his ‘wife’ David Furnish have entered on the birth certificate of their two sons that David Furnish is the mother. I’m sorry. That will give you an idea of how the concept of motherhood has emptied out. It’s gone. It’s been deconstructed.”
In the same spirit (and commenting after Ireland’s vote to redefine marriage), David van Gend of the Australian Marriage Forum said, “We have damaged irreparably the connection between marriage and a child’s right to know and be cared for by the two people who each give them half of their biological, social and familial identity.”
But that is the mindset of the day: It’s about me, not about my kids. It’s about how I feel, not what’s best for others. And we actually celebrate this kind of misguided thinking.
For years as I’ve been saying (and I now say again) it’s not too late to turn the tide.
But the hour is getting late, and a sense of urgency is more than appropriate.