If canon lawyer Peters cannot see the problem with barring _membership_ because a 17-year-old man is likely to experience a desire for sexual intercourse with the 15-year-old young man with whom he’s sharing a tent, then lawyer Peters has been a casuist for too long.

People have this incredibly narrow conception of the situations in which so-called discrimination is allowed. But if being sexually attracted to other scouts isn’t a reason to bar someone from the Boy Scouts, then why not combine boy and girl scouts? Hey, y’know, we’d keep the ban on actual sexual _acts_, so what would be the problem?

The idea that privacy and removing sexuality from the entire equation is the entire _point_ of single-sex organizations, especially those involving overnight trips and the like, seems to have escaped lawyer Peters entirely. In fact, his argument would seem to be applicable to _any_ organization, even a religious one. If his arguments work, why shouldn’t Catholic scouting organizations as well permit homosexual youth membership? There is nothing about his argument that applies distinctively to secular organizations, though he throws in the word “secular.” His entire argument is an apologia for the Scouts’ decision and more than insinuates that barring homosexual boy scouts is a form of injustice.

Faugh.

I recommend Anthony Esolen on the topic

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/04/9970/

I have a post up about this “Free Kate” case at my personal blog now with a link back to Romish Graffiti.

What I see here is a perfect storm in which the pan-sexualization of children via Planned Parenthood and school sex programs is coming together with the homosexual agenda. Once the pan-sexualization has gotten everyone to accept that minors engage in consensual sexual activity *all the time* and that we should at a minimum resign ourselves to that, and perhaps also encourage it and celebrate it, it’s more or less inevitable that age-of-consent laws and laws against lewd activity with a minor will go out of the window. Children either can consent to sex or they can’t. If they can, then, logically, what’s the prob? PP and co. tell us that they can and that they all do. Even young kids are being taught about a whole range of sexual acts, and high school is more or less portrayed as one long orgy. At that point, a four-year age gap and laws about it come to seem like mere pettifogging.

The gay angle provides a perfect opportunity to play the “everybody’s doing it” card. With a Romeo and Juliet law on the books and the age gap here apparently on the edge (I read that it’s four years in the state, so I suppose whether they were over or under that four-year gap will be a matter of a few months one way or the other), this is a great chance for the pro-child-sex left to push the envelope.

One day when unequivocal pedophilia between adults and even younger children is on the verge of legalization, which may come in our own lifetime, the liberals who are right now portraying that as alarmism will probably be portraying it as just the next logical step. As long as the child is “ready” of course and “really consents.” I suppose a few of them may be horrified, without realizing how thoroughly their policies paved the way.

The 87% number may be Angelina specific based upon the presence of the gene and family history, rather than some blanket number, but I don’t know.