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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (203995)	11/19/2001 5:30:46 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I read ( but did not watch it ) that this describes the entire plot of an episode of the gay TV comedy "Will and Grace". Thus, the possibility of seducing someone basically straight, and causing emotional turmoil, is ever- present......

To: Neocon who wrote (203995)	11/19/2001 6:03:53 PM
From: E. T.	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

But by legislating or whatever the scouts did, against it we're not protecting our children, I think. Becuase no one can know for sure when a child is going to cross the line sexually and be turned on by the same sex. We're not going to rely on other kids snitching on other kids. But you know, a gay scoutmaster may be able to identify with other kids that are confused and he doesn't have to be someone who does a sell job for the gay lifestyle. I too, had a guy, a very good friend at the time, who came-on to me when I was 15, and I never had anything to do with him again, it freeked me out too much. But in my old age when I look back, I figure I survived the experience okay. My folks at the time tried to make me reconcile with this fellow saying he was confused, but I couldn't have anything to do with him. Anyway, year's later I found out he was openly gay. And at the same time, I probably freeked a few girls with my come ons as well, but I'm still good friends with lots of them but maybe not all of them. Somebody help me!

To: Neocon who wrote (203995)	11/19/2001 6:05:39 PM
From: J_F_Shepard	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

re: In my experience, most of the gay friends I had ended up hitting on me at some point, despite supposedly understanding that I was not gay, and not interested. I would never characterize you as a guy who makes ridiculous statements Neo, but this one is really over the top....you're going to get poor Watson calculating that every man and boy in America and indeed the world is constantly being hit on. Either you don't know "all" the friends of yours who were or are gay or you're awfully cute...;-)

To: Neocon who wrote (203995)	11/19/2001 7:55:42 PM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I view this guy's comments as the common sense viewpoint of Scouting. Gay rights advocates have argued that homosexuals should simply be given the rights that everybody else has. In other words, that they be treated by society no differently than anybody else. Unfortunately, it's not quite that simple. As the "lawsuit alleges sexual assault" article makes clear, the Scouts have an obligation to protect their members. Society has traditionally disallowed sexually charged situations in which one party is particularly vulnerable. People that advocate the right of consenting adults to do anything they choose will get quite upset if it turns out that one of the participants was actually a young child. Whether or not that child "consented" is irrelevant. Actual action is not necessary to raise objections. If parents of a group of Girl Scouts age 15 to 17 find out that a 23-year-old man is going to be the sole adult in charge of the upcoming camping trip, the hollering will begin well before anything sinister actually happens. The 23-year-old man will be removed from the trip, whoever put him in charge will be reprimanded or fired, and someone more appropriate will run the camp. No "heterosexual advocacy" groups will swing into action to fight for the "right" of the young man to supervise a group of teenage girls. Everybody implicitly knows why that is a bad idea.' Now, perhaps the man would truly behave honorably. He may have no lecherous designs on the girls. As far as society is concerned, however, that's just too bad for him. It's not worth the risk. It is the same situation with putting a gay man in charge of younger boys. That is just a bad idea. Everybody knows why it is a bad idea. Will this cause some inconvenience to gay men that have no intention of making sexual advances toward boys? Yes, but, as with the case of the man supervising teenage girls, that's just too bad. It's a potentially explosive situation. When vulnerable children are involved, society is right to protect them, even at the expense of an adult's "right" to be trusted not to take advantage of their vulnerability.