Boyscout Leaders Only Exist To Molest Your Children.

As someone who is right-leaning, it disturbs me when I see blatant propaganda coming from the right wing.  I will get to Occu-Demos once again, but this one I cannot let slide:

On the site: Right Wing News, there was an article on the "absurdity" it is to allow a gay person be a Scout Leader (collective fake gasp, I'm sure).  I know many right-wingers, I come from a family of right-wingers, I do not know one person opposed to allowing Gay men to become Scout-Leaders, but let's get into it, shall we?

The article is titled: Gay Scoutmasters Will Lead The Boy Scouts On A March Into Oblivion.  Very propagandy-sounding, and it pulls no punches.  The first paragraph (which is a screen-shot to prevent any editing) reads:

That light blue text is a link, and I was expecting it to be a study (or at least some research) as to why teen-scouts will be "bad touched", but it wasn't.  What was the justification for this bold claim?  The NYT's article simply announcing the lifting of the ban.  So...  please, Right Wing News, where's the basis to the claim?

The people commenting were even more disturbing - for instance:

Great parenting.  Jerry Sandusky was married to a woman, leave your son with him...  right?

Here's another one:

Were they?  According to Wikipedia, homosexuals have not been allowed to join the Scouts since at least 1980.  The 2,000 cases you're referring to were revealed in 1994.  There was another case of "bad touch" in 2006.  If only you were an inmate at San Quentin Prison.

Here's the thing homo-haters: your logic is flawed.  If you think a gay dude is going to hit or make an advance at a straight dude - the Scouts may not be for you.  If you're afraid your son is going to accept that advance and you disown him after you find out he's gay: the Scouts probably aren't for you.

Not only is your argument against this incredibly left-winged, it lacks all forms of logic (keeping it in the left-wing category).  So, if we can't trust someone to be around another person they're physically attracted to, how can we ever trust straight people to meet with other straight people of the opposite sex, say - at church?  I've been to church plenty of times, and I never remember NOT containing myself around a woman I was physically attracted to.  I also have never experienced an orgy inside of a church...

So please, what is the legitimate Republican argument to be against this?  We need to embrace it.  Some may not accept it - but Republicanism does not require everyone to accept what you do.

Update

Did not mean to attack leftists at all.  My apologies.

Racism Takes a Hard Left Turn

The KKK showed up at the South Carolina Statehouse to protest the removal of the Confederate flag yesterday (July 18th, 2015), and man did that mean Republicans are racist.  I guess we're ignoring the fact that a Republican governor is the reason it's being removed, and even stated:

"The strength and grace the people of South Carolina have shown over the last three weeks have inspired our family, our neighbors and the entire world. Our family hopes the people of South Carolina will join us in staying away from the disruptive, hateful spectacle members of the Ku Klux Klan hope to create over the weekend and instead focus on what brings us together. We want to make the Statehouse a lonely place for them. In doing so, we’ll honor those we have lost and continue to make our state stronger. "

Now, of course, in the article linked above (Think Progress), we had to see sh*t like this:

Yes...  of course they will, because - some bullsh*t methodology, I guess.  Or, because this guy said so.  Before I continue, let me point out:  I've been to some dark corners of the internet to figure out what these people really think (white nationalists, KKK, and just general assholes) - here's what I've found: they are pro-union (to protect white labor), they are pro-abortion (to control the non-white population), they are anti-capitalism --  this one for more than a few reasons.  Some believe capitalism is a Jewish construct, therefore cannot be trusted.  Others believe the benefits of capitalism are disproportionately distributed to the non-white population, and the rest are just idiots.

Wait - did I just list reasons to vote for Bernie Sanders?

Now, I didn't go into as much detail, which was obviously a pathetic attempt at ignoring the myth of the southern strategy:

Let's ignore the fact that the Southern Strategy didn't exist.  This person did not answer my question - which is common among those most affected by propaganda - and my question still stands:  why would an anti-capitalist vote for a Republican?

Let's consider: leftist economic policies are meant to "prop up" classes that they deem protected.  Well, white nationalists are seeking to do exactly that: protect their "class", or race.  In the same way La Raza votes for Democrats to protect the Latino population, White Nationalists will vote for the same style politicians to protect whites.

So my question still stands, and I will bring it one step further: why would anyone who is anti-capitalism, or favors protecting one race or group over another, ever vote for a Republican?