I'm sure a majority of pedophiles are male, just like the majority of rapists, armed robbers, burglars, etc are male - it's the hormones. But male pedophiles who target boys are by definition homosexual pedophiles and male pedophiles who target girls are by definition heterosexual pedophiles (opposite for female pedos). I suspect individual pedophiles usually go after one or the other - not just children in general. So pedophilia is a perversion of a primary sexual orientation, I belive.
How about a homosexual man with a son? Seems like a natural to me. Most of the gay folks I knew from grad school who live near me have children now- just like everyone else. I don't think ANYONE should be a leader in the girlscouts or boyscouts if they don't have a child in the troop.
I acknowledged there are a few homosexual men with sons. Though they are very few and I think they should be willing to give up things like being scout leaders as a price of their lifestyle.
You mentioned girl scouts - I wonder if male girl scout leaders are allowed - I suspect they aren't and I think that's appropriate. Even though its discrimination.
There can be good reasons to discriminate on the basis of gender or sexual orientation IMO. The military does so and that is appropriate. And so should groups like the GSA and BSA. If the BSA were to allow gay scout leaders or the GSA were to allow male scout leaders, it would tend to destroy those organizations. People know how things really work and wouldn't trust their kids with inappropriate scout leaders as I suspect you wouldn't. Would you let your male child go on an overnight camping trip with one or a couple of gay scout leaders and be unconcerned? Would you let a daughter of yours go on an overnight camping trip with a male scout leader or leaders? I doubt it. Though it would be discriminatory not to.
No subsidizing organizations that discriminate.
Like I said I think in some instances there are good reasons involving human nature to discriminate on gender and sexual orientation. Particularly when important things like children are involved. There aren't similar compelling reasons involving basic human nature for racial discrimination.
Also the mere use of parks and school facilities after hours is stretching the "subsidizing" issue IMO.
You seem to have wandered kind of far afield
Yes, but it was a response to the losing side comment.
I think you've managed to forget all the battles the liberals won.
I think liberals mistakenly designate past "battles" as liberal victories after the fact. Take civil rights as an example. Was that a liberal victory? Not at all IMO. Civil rights gains weren't imposed on American society by liberals and given to blacks as a gift. It was black people who won their civil rights both in the law courts and in the court of public opinion. School desegregation ended via a court case brought by Thurgood Marshall of the NAACP. The desegration of public facilities came about by MLK Jr. and the SCLC and a campaign of local sit-ins, marches, and peaceful demonstrations by black people. Black people got their civil rights by their own effort - it wasn't bestowed on them by liberal whites.
I will also tell you that the younger generations in this country poll considerably more lilberally on this issue- homosexuality. I will go out on a limb and predict that your position will be toast within 15 years. I understand you disagree. I've seen the pendulum swing many times in this country, and you seem to forget all the times liberal ideas have triumphed and simply become part of the culture- women's lib, equal rights, abortion, reproductive freedom and sex education, safety nets of all kinds- welfare, social security, medicare, and on and on. Sure, some people still bitch about all those positions, but there are not going to be any major takebacks on these.
Younger people always poll more liberal than older people. But most people change as they mature - I did and most people do. I recall hearing young people decades ago talk foolishly about how things would change when they got control of the world. Well baby-boomers are in control now and if anything we've been moving to the right over the last couple decades.
As for young people as a whole, as others have noted, "gay" really has become a term of derision for young people (and its applied to more than homosexuals - really to almost anything they like). Hard to square that with the idea the younger generation are all gay liberationists.
There has never been a culture in human history which has regarded homosexual marriage as legitimate. Not a single one - ever! I think that is very significant. It's highly indicative that there is something contrary to human nature involved. I can't explain what it is - but how else can you explain the complete and utter absence of gay marriage anywhere anytime?
What doesn't work at all (imo) is the conservative way of dealing with crime, btw- are you aware of just how many people we've incarcerated? Let people take the drugs they want, and let's save a whole lot of money on the prison system and take the profit out of the drug trade. That's a movement whose time will come too.
The conservative way of dealing with crime is to arrest and punish criminals and most especially get them off the streets. And that works as witnessed by the successes in crime reduction in places where it has been tried. I'll refer to several posts below on the Politics for Pros thread on the subject of crime:
#174616 deals with NY City policing and its impact on crime
#171245 deals with criminals returning to New Orleans to take advantage of the liberal treatment of criminals there vs Texas
#164387 a long article which contrasts Houston vs New Orleans government and crime enforcement
The liberal way of handling crime seems to be the opposite of the conservative - avoiding as much as possible arresting and punishing criminals. And that actually facilitiates crime rather than lowering it.
Re. drug policy - the issue of what should be legal and what shouldn't be is a different issue from law enforcement. Some conservatives support drug legalization - Milton Friedman and Bill Buckley come to mind. And some liberals oppose even legalizing marijuana - like Bill Clinton - recall the Clinton administration's battles with several states over the medical marijuana issue. Personally I'm a conservative and I have no problem with decriminalizing marijuana. Though I don't favor legalizing more addictive and harmful opium and coca based drugs. Actually providing dopers a legal, less harmful drug to use might even lower the use of harder drugs all by itself. Regardless of where we draw the line between legal and illegal things though - the conservative way of enforcing crime works best. And that can be demonstrated by real world examples.
...liberal ideas have triumphed and simply become part of the culture- women's lib, equal rights, abortion, reproductive freedom and sex education, safety nets of all kinds- welfare, social security, medicare, and on and on.
I question whether women's lib has changed much. "equal rights" - I've already dealt with civil rights and I don't see it as a liberal issue. Maybe you were referring to the ER Amendment which was never passed - who has been the victor there?
Re. abortion - that is still an issue being fought. I suspect Roe will go eventually and the issue will be thrown back to the states some of which adopt liberal and some conservatives policies.
Reproductive freedom - if you're meaning contraception - the pill changed a lot there plus I don't see this as very controversial. Ditto with sex education - its a question of what you teach - if sex ed means propagandizing young children (through using texts like King and King or Heather has Two Mommies) that is bad and is definately an issue being fought.
Welfare - as you might recall it was reformed drastically a decade ago - ( see joannejacobs.com - click on "three families" and "Making Welfare Work" to get to a couple good articles on the subject). Again - who has been the victor?
Social security and medicare - yes, the programs are entrenched. But demographics are going to cause us extreme economic problems with those programs going forward and they will eventually be aggressively reformed. |
