A pro-homosexual spokesman said of the gay takeover of the Boy Scouts: "This is about building character, not about sexual orientation." His empty line only proves that the hard left understands about winning a debate by defining the terms. He is asserting that sexual preference ISN'T character, because it's hard-wired by heredity.
All right, let's ACCEPT his terms, and see what follows. Character does at least involve caring about the well-being of others, doesn't it? So if it's built-in that gays HAVE TO BE attracted to their own sex and not to the opposite sex, can they not be asked to practice the same precaution as every heterosexual person is expected to practice as a matter of course?
If heterosexual adults demanded to be allowed to camp overnight with other people's children of the OPPOSITE sex, parents would object vigorously; and the potential heterosexual pedophiles would NEVER FOR ONE INSTANT be allowed to get away with whining, "Poor me, I'm being discriminated against!" No doubt some of the adults wanting this camping arrangement would in fact NOT be desiring to molest the children; but parents would STILL be within their rights to want to prevent ANY risk of molestation. So tell me why gays should be permitted intimate access to the same-sex children THEY could potentially lust after, when straights ARE NOT given a corresponding access to opposite-sex children?
If gay men really DON'T have the slightest interest in using boys sexually, there is a VERY EASY way they could show good faith. Let them offer to camp out WITH GIRLS -- who, on the gay mens' own declared terms, would be completely safe from sexual molestation by the gay men. Why do you suppose I'm not hearing them offering this?
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)