The Washington Post Editorial Board displays a raging case of cognitive dissonance when it comes to the Boy Scouts.

In today’s WP, “protecting our boys” is the second editorial posted on their website. The editors lash out at the Boy Scouts’ leadership for covering-up numerous cases of pedophilia by “accused child predators” since the 1940s. The Los Angeles Times and New York Times filed suit to force the release of “thousands of Boy Scout documents” that “sketch out years of tragic, life-rending mistakes leaders apparently made when confronted with evidence of abuse”.[ Boy Scouts must prove children’s welfare comes first, October 27, 2012]

Last July, the WP editors slammed the Boy Scouts for excluding homosexuals from their ranks. After reviewing the “exclusionary” policy, an “11-member special review committee reached a unanimous decision” that “homosexuals ‘open or avowed’ are still unwelcome in the Boy Scouts”. Perhaps the leadership was actively “protecting our boys”. The Scouts’ leadership was realistically trying to prevent future problems that have plagued the Scouts in the past.

Boy Scouts reaffirm their intolerant ban on gays,  July 19, 2012

The WP editors refuse to acknowledge the promiscuous nature of male homosexuality much less the probability of risk and the integrity of the organization if it allows homosexuals as members and leaders. What is pedophilia if not an extreme manifestation of homosexual conduct? Harry Hay, an LGBT advocate and one of the founders of the Mattachine Society, has defended NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association, an advocacy organization that promotes pedophilia and pederasty. The “gay rights movement” historian David Thorstad is a founding member of NAMBLA.

WP editors are more concerned about the “unequal” treatment of homosexuals (and bisexual and “transgendered youths”) than the overall wellbeing of teenage boys in an all male youth organization. The Scouts have taken appropriate steps to avoid opening their membership to sexual deviates and perverts despite the WP’s admonition of “a sad embrace of intolerance”. In this case, “intolerance” is justifiable in “protecting our boys” from “life-rending mistakes”.