Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (1660)	1/19/2001 12:50:32 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

<< But the men who ADMIT to being gay are the ones least likely to molest, I'd bet big money on that...>> I'm sure that's true. They would also be the ones the most closely supervised. But if out gays are, on principle, because one wants to feel that one is being fair, welcomed into such roles, and heterosexual males are invited to superintend young girls, what will happen over time to the percentage of sexually motivated gay and straight counselors with molestation on their minds; or not on their minds at all, but, spontaneously and to their distress, in their pants, at a vulnerable moment? Do you think two or three straight males should be allowed to take young girls off on a trip? As a policy, it's not a good idea. Should two or three gay males be allowed to take young boys off on a trip? How would you avoid this situation if openly gay males were invited to superintend groups of young boys? IMO, we should protect people younger than the age of consent from vulnerability to those who may desire their bodies sexually. The logistics of effectuating this protection are susceptible to seeming mean and suspicious. IMO they are suspicious, and should be. Those who insist it's about gays being immoral are both stupid and mean, it seems to me.