Here’s yet another example why gays should not be allowed in Boy Scouts

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

EX-LEADER OF TROOP 666 FACES FOUR YEARS

By LAURA ITALIANO, ANDY GELLER and BRIDGET HARRISON

July 20, 2001 -- A former Upper East Side scoutmaster's ###### appetite for little boys turned Troop 666 into Boy Scout hell, prosecutors and accusers say.

Jerrold Schwartz, 42 - whose wife is an assistant principal at an Upper West Side public school - is facing up to four years in jail.

He pleaded not guilty yesterday to charges he repeatedly sodomized an Eagle Scout under his charge in 1996 and 1997 - including an assault on Schwartz's wedding night.

But that victim's lawyer, Michael Dowd - who has filed a $50 million suit against Schwartz and the Boy Scouts - says four other young men claim Schwartz abused them in the 1980s and early '90s, cases now too old to pursue.

Schwartz used the Boy Scouts and his Colorado-based youth travel company, "Adventure Trails," as his own "personal candy stores" to meet young boys, Dowd said in a phone interview.

"Young people . . . require a hands-on approach," Adventure Trails says on a Web site advertising its ski and educational program for school-age kids.

"I had a sickness," Schwartz allegedly admitted to the abused former Eagle Scout in a taped conversation that's evidence in the indictment.

"I always considered you like a little brother, like a little son," Schwartz allegedly told the victim, who is now 20.

"Most people don't have sex with their little son," the victim responded, according to a transcript of the April conversation at Schwartz's East 80th Street apartment.

Schwartz and his wife, Eileen, left Manhattan Supreme Court hand in hand after he was freed on $25,000 cash bail.

Schwartz, who allegedly admits on tape to having "a sick, sexual mind," had been a scoutmaster since 1978, but was "immediately removed" when the accusations came to light in May, said a spokesman for the Greater New York Council of Boy Scouts.

None of the abuses against the Eagle Scout took place at the mid-Manhattan synagogue or the Park Avenue church where Troop 666 has held its meetings, Manhattan prosecutors said.

The abuses allegedly happened at Schwartz's Manhattan home and on trips to Colorado, New Mexico, Florida, and Vermont - including one in a Vermont hotel on the night of Schwartz's wedding, the Eagle Scout says in the transcript.

The district attorney's office is still investigating Schwartz, lead prosecutor Evan Krutoy told Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Micki Scherer.

Schwartz and his wife declined comment. But defense lawyer Charles Stillman said, "There are loads and loads of people who think the world of this man."

-- John Wayne Gasey (I have candy@in my front pocket.com), July 22, 2001

Answers

Response to HereÂ’s yet another example why gays should not be allowed in Boy Scouts

Here’s yet another example why gays should not be allowed in Boy Scouts

-- John Wayne Gasey (I have candy@in my front pocket.com), July 22, 2001.

Response to HereÂ’s yet another example why gays should not be allowed in Boy Scouts

Troop 666! What did you expect?

-- (the beast@your.door), July 22, 2001.

Response to HereÂ’s yet another example why gays should not be allowed in Boy Scouts

Sounds to me like more an example of the heterosexual [married] PEDOPHILE than anything to do with gays.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 22, 2001.

Response to HereÂ’s yet another example why gays should not be allowed in Boy Scouts

“Sounds to me like more an example of the heterosexual [married] PEDOPHILE than anything to do with gays.”

Anita, you stupid bitch, he’s butt fucking little BOYS! You know, man fucks boy, NAMBLA, gay love and all of that shit. GAWD what a dumb cunt!

-- Man (fucks@boy.=HOMO), July 22, 2001.


Response to HereÂ’s yet another example why gays should not be allowed in Boy Scouts

Illiterate troll --

You actually think Schwartz was gay? Did you miss these juicy parts?

". . . including an assault on Schwartz's wedding night."

"Schwartz and his wife, Eileen, left Manhattan Supreme Court hand in hand . . ."

". . . including one in a Vermont hotel on the night of Schwartz's wedding, the Eagle Scout says in the transcript."

"Schwartz and his wife declined comment."

Uh huh. Schwartz was gay, right? Looks to me like he was married and most likely straight, except that he appears to have some mighty objectionable predilections when it comes to little boys. Besides, most women I know wouldn't intentionally get married to homosexuals or to boy-banging members of NAMBLA -- so it is most likely that Mrs. Schwartz got hitched to this fellow thinking that he was straight.

Perhaps you should pay a little more attention to the object of your objections. It might help you to look a little less ridiculous.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 23, 2001.



Response to HereÂ’s yet another example why gays should not be allowed in Boy Scouts

Well, already that is your opinion even if it is wrong. How do you know anything about this man? You can quote a few lines from an article, and offer this up as 'proof' of this man's sexual orientation. He's married and holds hands with his wife, therefore he's 'most likely straight'. Too funny!

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 23, 2001.

Response to HereÂ’s yet another example why gays should not be allowed in Boy Scouts

Listen up you ignorant motherfucker. This may come as a surprise to your punk ass, but many gays are in traditional marriages. You sound like another liberal pussy boy that never hit the streets so shut the fuck up about that which you obviously know shit about.

-- Man (fucks@boy.=HOMO), July 23, 2001.

Response to HereÂ’s yet another example why gays should not be allowed in Boy Scouts

Maria --

"Well, already that is your opinion even if it is wrong."

Except that, given the information that we have, my opinion is correct and supported by factual information. Please do feel free to go hunt up some rebutting evidence, and then perhaps you will have a factual basis for saying that I am wrong. At any rate, in the absence of proof to the contrary, Maria, my assertion stands.

"How do you know anything about this man?"

What I know about him is irrelevant. ANOTHER poster claimed that this man is a homosexual. I reposted several items from the article itself indicating that he is married to a woman, which would appear to be a very strong indication that he is NOT a homosexual. I presented that evidence to COUNTER the baseless claim of the poster who said that Mr. Schultz is gay. Anyone with a counter-rebuttal is certainly welcome to present it.

"You can quote a few lines from an article, and offer this up as 'proof' of this man's sexual orientation."

You know Maria, if you weren't so clueless, you would be funny. The poster who claimed that Schwartz was gay didn't offer any proof AT ALL, whereas I DID when I disagreed with him.. Go argue with the other poster; I'll be waiting right here for you when you're done with him.

"He's married and holds hands with his wife, therefore he's 'most likely straight'."

And you conclude that he is gay based on . . . what?

"Too funny!"

It is quite funny, the disregard you appear to hold for fact, truth and evidence. But not the laughing kind of funny -- instead, it's the sad kind of funny.

Anonytroll --

"Listen up you ignorant motherfucker."

I am listening, ignorant motherfucker. And when you feel that you can demonstrate any ignorance on my part, you are cordially invited to try.

"This may come as a surprise to your punk ass, but many gays are in traditional marriages."

And you know this how? By personal experience? Please present some verifiable facts for this assertion of yours. Without proof, it is merely a wild-eyed assertion.

"You sound like another liberal pussy boy that never hit the streets"

I am a conservative that has a great love for knowledge, whereas you seem to be carrying a great deal of ignorance around with you. Further, if 'hitting the streets' would grant me some insight toward the mechanics of closeted homosexual romances, then I respectfully decline. But if you want to tell us what you know, Dudley, then bring it on.

"so shut the fuck up about that which you obviously know shit about."

Fuck you, you arrogant little pussy. Do we really want your tired old pederast-equals-homosexual argument hammered on, like it's been hammered on so many times before? It's been destroyed here before, but we can certainly flatten it out again, if you like.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 29, 2001.


Response to HereÂ’s yet another example why gays should not be allowed in Boy Scouts

iam the one they are talking about back in '78',and he is a sick fuck he is not gay he is to much of a pussy to try fucking with an adult.that is why he prays on little boys.if you want to debate something usefull talk about why the boy scouts of america protected him,and how they ignored my complaints ,and let him hurt more kids

-- ------------------------------- (u are all off track@lost.com), September 02, 2001.

Response to HereÂ’s yet another example why gays should not be allowed in Boy Scouts

Here are the true facts: homosexuals like to penetrate the anuses of young boys. They cannot be in the presence young boys without getting aroused and thinking about their rectums. The reason men turn homosexual is that today's feminist culture does not allow them unlimited access to females. If males were allowed to be assertive and penetrate the female of their choice then homosexuality and pedophilia would not happen.

-- george ervis (ervisl@hotmail.com), September 02, 2001.


Response to HereÂ’s yet another example why gays should not be allowed in Boy Scouts

It's been slow around here, so I'll take a nibble.

george said: "Here are the true facts:..."

OK, george. You say these are true facts. Saying something doesn't make it true. You could have said just the opposite, or made all of it up. Or maybe voices in your head told you.

How do you know these are true facts?

-- Miserable SOB (misery@misery.com), September 02, 2001.


Response to HereÂ’s yet another example why gays should not be allowed in Boy Scouts

It is common sense. That is why thee is a cultural taboo against allowing homosexuals to be around young boys.

-- george ervis (ervisl@hotmail.com), September 02, 2001.

Response to HereÂ’s yet another example why gays should not be allowed in Boy Scouts

"It is common sense."

Sorry. Not good enough. It used to be "common sense" that a black man couldn't be a good quarterback. Not every widely accepted social idea is "true". You could just be spouting a widely accepted prejudice that has nothing to do with truth.

The way to know if what you say is true is to know what homosexual men think and what arouses them, by their own actions or admissions. Nothing I know of syays that this is "true" in that bedrock, knowable, incontrovertible sense of what is TRUE, rather than just ACCEPTED or BELIEVED.

-- miserable SOB (misery@misery.com), September 02, 2001.


Response to HereÂ’s yet another example why gays should not be allowed in Boy Scouts

Why so defensive about Homosexuals, are you gay yourself? If so, get help. There is now Reclamation therapy.

-- george ervis (ervisl@hotmail.com), September 03, 2001.

Response to HereÂ’s yet another example why gays should not be allowed in Boy Scouts

Ann Heche (?) now claims to have been "insane" when she was keeping company with Ellen Degenerate. Ann is engaged to a straight man.

-- (Roland@hatemail.com), September 03, 2001.


Response to HereÂ’s yet another example why gays should not be allowed in Boy Scouts

There you have it - proof that the female vagina is made to be entered by the male penis.

-- george ervis (ervisl@hotmail.com), September 03, 2001.

Response to HereÂ’s yet another example why gays should not be allowed in Boy Scouts

"Why so defensive about Homosexuals, are you gay yourself?"

Oh, george, grow up!

When you make positive statements and label them as "true facts", you have to bear the burden of proof. Obviously that burden is much too heavy for you. Given the chance to show the quality of your facts, you only showed that you have no clue what you are talking about.

Now you are trying to change the subject. Be a man, george. It's hard, but it is worth the effort.

-- Miserable SOB (misery@misery.com), September 03, 2001.


Response to HereÂ’s yet another example why gays should not be allowed in Boy Scouts

But I AM a man, not a homosexual

-- george (ervisl@hotmail.com), September 04, 2001.

Response to HereÂ?s yet another example why gays should not be allowed in Boy Scouts

"But I AM a man, not a homosexual"

I see you still have a lot to learn about what it means to be a man. If all it took was a penis, you'd be a man the day you were born.

-- Miserable SOB (misery@misery.com), September 04, 2001.


Response to HereÂ’s yet another example why gays should not be allowed in Boy Scouts

No, what determines manhood is having a rectum clear of other men's fluids.

-- george ervis (ervisl@hotmail.com), September 04, 2001.

Response to HereÂ?s yet another example why gays should not be allowed in Boy Scouts

No, george. Think.

-- Miserable SOB (misery@misery.com), September 04, 2001.

Response to HereÂ’s yet another example why gays should not be allowed in Boy Scouts

LOL. Now I'm a man? That WAS funny, George.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), September 04, 2001.

Response to HereÂ’s yet another example why gays should not be allowed in Boy Scouts

I'm a man? It's bad enough I'm servant to a mule, but now I'm a man servant to a mule?

-- helen (gender@confusion.deluxe), September 04, 2001.

Response to HereÂ’s yet another example why gays should not be allowed in Boy Scouts

I'm sorry, but everyone who has answered previously has missed the point. They are concerned with whether or not Jerrold Schwartz is a homosexual, not the permanent effect this pedophil has had on this young boy! Schwartz's sexuality does not matter, it is his actions that are at issue. I strongly suggest that we foccus on the important issue at hand, rather than speculate on one man's sexuality. We should not be concerned with gay men belonging to the Boy Scouts, rather we should worry that pedphils, straight or gay, are Scout Leaders in our Troups today. We wish young man luck and hope that he is able to deal with all the trama this event has surely caused him.

-- Carrie (Carolyn474@aol.com), October 03, 2001.

Response to HereÂ’s yet another example why gays should not be allowed in Boy Scouts

Pedophilia is a mental disorder, which is under a larger group of mental disorders called paraphilias. Other well known paraphilias include: sexual sadism, sexual masochism (S&M), voyeurism and exhibitionism. There are eight in all. You can educate yourself on the rest. Education would control a large portion of the prior arguements and the unfortunate correlation with gays and the boy scouts. Homosexuality and pedophilia do not go hand in hand.

"Heterosexuals" have commited the larger number of sex crimes against children. Women have been convicted as well. Yes, homosexual adults have been convicted too. It is limiting and incorrect when you hold that homosexuals only commit this crime. Further, it is incorrect that boys are the only victims. It is a crime against any and all children under puberty. Teenagers can also be and have been convicted of exploiting children. It is incorrect to generalize pedophilia as anyone under age. The true pedophile loses interest in children who have reached puberty and will seek new victims under this age.

I understand the first reaction is to blame that which we understand little about. Our refusal to be educated in areas contrary our beliefs will not make us a reliable authority. Now go out and do the right thing.

-- (tahboy10@cs.com), November 12, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ