The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Winning
32 Points
The Contender
SaintNick
Con (against)
Losing
31 Points

Underage boys should not be supervised by gay men

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/11/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,138 times Debate No: 8214
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (16)
Votes (10)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

What would a grown man's motive be to volunteer to become a Scout leader, a soccer coach or a choirmaster? These types of posts are unpaid so the motive cannot be financial. It could well be that the man simply wants to pass on his skills to the younger generation, which is most commendable. However, in the case of a gay man, it could be that he enjoys the close company of boys because he is sexually attracted to them.

Tragically, you don't have to look far to find stories about gay men abusing boys in their trust...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

http://news.bbc.co.uk...

http://www.thesun.co.uk...

Of course, not all homosexual men are paedophiles, but neither are most straight men. Nevertheless, a heterosexual man would not be allowed to take a group of underage girls on a camping trip and it therefore follows that a homosexual man should not be allowed to take a group of underage boys camping.

In view of this, I propose that applications from gay men for positions that involve the care or supervision of boys under the age of consent should be automatically rejected.

Thank you.
SaintNick

Con

First, my opponent notes that there is no financial incentive to volunteer for unpaid positions, making it a likely choice that an individual has negative ulterior motives when taking on such positions as Coach or Scout Leader. However, Pro himself admits that a person may solely wish to pass on skills to a younger generation, which is commendable. Missing from his assessment is the fact that many fathers (and mothers) volunteer for these positions in order to spend quality time with their children. Still there are those who volunteer as a form of internship or to gain experience for a resume, i.e. a music graduate student may become a choirmaster to beef up their chances of getting a paid position.

Because these are all good reasons for one to volunteer, we must assume that due to the low number of actual pedophiles that exist, it would be wrong to presume that adult volunteers have the intention of harming young children when taking on these positions. Of course there are the nasty few who would commit such heinous acts, but in reality, the number of child molesters in comparison with the rest of the population is pretty low. The number of GAY molesters is even fewer. So what Pro is asking is that we put a stipulation on one faction of the population, which, my friends, equals a hard case of discrimination.

In noting that "a heterosexual man would not be allowed to take a group of underage girls on a camping trip," Pro fails to provide proof for this assertion. Surely I could easily find a recount online of a father taking his daughter and her friends camping or something of the sort. There are even other instances in more public scenarios where this would take place, for instance a male coach taking his female players on a trip. So, Pro's first contention is actually flawed and in a sense almost a blatant lie.

Moreover, Pro continues that the no adult male around young females "therefore follows that a homosexual man should not be allowed to take a group of underage boys camping." Why? This is not something that is typically upheld by society. For instance, in choosing a place of residency, I was assigned a room with a female roommate. I had the option of switching rooms on the basis that I did not want to share my room with a girl. So did she, on the basis that I was a male. However, if I had been assigned a room with a gay male roommate, I would not have had the option to switch rooms simply because my roommate was gay. This is because we typically honor the notion that it's understandable to possibly by uncomfortable by those of a different gender, while discriminating based solely on one's sexuality seems harsh and unfair if not immoral.

This is also non-sensical because sexuality is fluid; someone can be straight one day, and consider themselves gay the next... or there have even been instances of two straight women or two straight men falling in love, engaging in intercourse, etc. Plus, anyone can be made uncomfortable by anyone - there has to be boundaries somewhere. For instance, what if a Republican student didn't want to be taught or "supervised" by a Liberal teacher? What if an Islamic student didn't feel comfortable with their Christian soccer coach? Surely my opponent would argue that these differences aren't potentially HARMFUL to the child, however, you cannot prove mental distress, nor can you prove that a gay choirmaster would necessarily attack or harm a young schoolboy. The same way you can't prove that a straight one wouldn't.

Also, there comes the issue of policing this issue: how do you know who is gay and who isn't? The Don't Ask Don't Tell policy is a joke. People lie all the time. Why keep gays in the closet? Why limit their employment opportunities? Why restrict them from participating in things they enjoy because other people in society MIGHT do bad things (that they themselves wouldn't do)? Pro is asking us to punish and inhibit innocent people on the basis of other people's mistakes. And guess what - the bad people will probably continue getting away with it. Also, I should mention that enforcing this type of stereotyping only perpetuates ignorance instead of acceptance among future generations.

And finally, the resolution calls for the supervision of under age boys to be prohibited by gay men. What about gay teachers? Pro is asking to devalue the credibility and degrees of gay people based on their sexuality alone. He is also suggesting that we use more incompetent straight educators over preferable gay ones should a situation occur where a choice must be made. Pro has the burden of proving why gay men should be restricted based on their sexuality in an otherwise progressive (non Islamic) society that is supposed to promote change, diversity and tolerance. He must also prove why innocent people should be punished for the actions of others, as well as explain why gay men should not supervise under age boys in any way. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

Many thanks to my opponent, SaintNick, for accepting this debate.

My opponent raises some very good points, points which I intend to fully address. However, while doing so, I would ask the voters to remember that my proposal is motivated not by any malice against homosexual men, rather a concern for the welfare of children - and I believe all right-minded people would agree that it is the children's welfare that must remain paramount at all times.

That said, I agree with my opponent that the vast majority of men that volunteer to work with children, boys or girls, do so without any ulterior sexual motive, indeed, I conceded that much in my opening argument.

However, my opponent wrote:

"in reality, the number of child molesters in comparison with the rest of the population is pretty low. The number of GAY molesters is even fewer. So what Pro is asking is that we put a stipulation on one faction of the population, which, my friends, equals a hard case of discrimination."

The fact is, paedophilia is more common among gay men than straight men and, furthermore, the number of victims per child sex offender is less than 20 for straight men but over 150 for gay men. In view of this, it would seem prudent to place homosexual men in the highest category of risk.

If these statistics come as a surprise to you, they won't to gay men, many of whom do not even recognise that abusing young boys is wrong and absolutely indefensible no matter what the circumstances. For example, leading gay rights activist Larry Kramer wrote:

"In those instances where children do have sex with their homosexual elders, be they teachers or anyone else, I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity..."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com...

Whilst I do not propose wrapping kids up in cotton wool and further accept that some determined gay paedophiles will always find a way to abuse boys, I do believe that it is right that, as a society, we seek to minimise the risk to children.

That is why an application for the post of a teacher, or any other position of trust over children is subject to a police check in order to ensure that the applicant has no criminal record relating to sexual offences against children. If the result comes back positive, their application is automatically rejected, even though the ex-offender may be fully reformed and rehabilitated. Does my opponent believe this to be discriminatory? If not, then surely it is right to extend the same principle to a gay man seeking to be left in a position of trust with young boys by asking them to state their sexual orientation on their applications?

My opponent goes on to suggest that gay men are likely to lie about their sexuality on their applications. This may be true, but once employed, it would be very difficult to disguise the fact that they are gay. Fellow members of staff will soon be suspicious if their new colleague:

* Arrives for work driving a Fiat 500, a Mazda MX5 or a Mercedes SLK.
* Is caught watching Will & Grace, Bareback Mountain or the Sound of Music in the staffroom.
* Confesses to never watching football (soccer) unless Manchester United's cheating pretty-boy, Cristiano Ronaldo, is playing.
* Is overheard whistling tunes from songs by Westlife, The Back Passage Boys or Kylie Minogue.
* Has a poncy hairdo, manicured nails and perfectly laundered shirts.
* Drinks white wine spritzers, Pimms and lemonade or Bailey's Irish Creams down the pub after work.
* Is spotted hanging around the gents' toilets in the park.
* Has a special friend who has a big bushy moustache, leather hotpants and a string vest.

Okay, the above are stereotypical of male homosexual behaviour, but if any substantive suspicions are aroused, the member of staff concerned can be suspended pending further investigations.

"What about gay teachers?" my opponent asks.

Nothing wrong with that, under most circumstances, I never said there was. However, let's consider the scenario of a boarding school where pupils stay at school overnight (which is very common in Europe, perhaps less so in America). Under no circumstances would a male teacher be allowed to supervise a girls dormitory, yet homosexual men are allowed to supervise boys dorms. This is wrong and can and does lead to all sorts of abuses. Here's a news item from today just to illustrate how common these appalling crimes are:

http://news.bbc.co.uk...

That is why we must act to stop filthy paedophiles from abusing boys in their care and this can only be done by preventing gay men from supervising underage boys.

Thank you.
SaintNick

Con

SaintNick forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by zezima 4 years ago
zezima
if I was a boy scout, I wouldn't want a gay man sleeping in the tent next to me. just saying.
Posted by MTGandP 8 years ago
MTGandP
CON would have easily won if he hadn't forfeited.
Posted by Lexicaholic 8 years ago
Lexicaholic
The problem I see with Pro's argument is that he argues that job discrimination based on sexuality, ordinarily unacceptable, is acceptable where children are involved and there is a risk of any danger because anything should be done to minimize harm to children. If that was the case, wouldn't we only let children be taught/watched by eunuchs? Child molestation is a cross-gender, age, race and sexuality issue. The only way to be sure the children are safe seems to be to eliminate sex drive entirely. There are plenty of sources that will show this and clarify the rate of pedophilia relative to homosexuality. I hope Con uses them.

Personally I think the best method is to have multiple adults watching more than one person's child at any one time. What harm could one perverse person do, that two diligent people could not prevent?
Posted by InfraRedEd 8 years ago
InfraRedEd
Oh hi Sherlock. I may have the answer to the YEC crowd: Wikipedia. Many use it for a reliable source, and it seems to be able to portray a "fair and balanced" view. What do you think?

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by sherlockmethod 8 years ago
sherlockmethod
Did he really quote worldnetdaily?
Posted by tBoonePickens 8 years ago
tBoonePickens
I say death penalty to child molesters be they gay or straight! Till they get around the 14, 15, 16, 17 year old range in which case it may be tricky...I always say, "if there's turf on the field, play ball!"
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Don't you EVER associate Baileys' with homosexuality, Brian!
Posted by InfraRedEd 8 years ago
InfraRedEd
Why do cops travel in threes? One can read, one can write, and one to keep an eye on these two dangerous intellectuals.

There's your answer. Everyone looking over everyone else's shoulder. Or whatever.
Posted by InfraRedEd 8 years ago
InfraRedEd
And as for Saint Nick

http://www.debate.org...

Happy "New Days Year"

The brevity is a good option and should be used more. People will read the debate if it is shorter.
Posted by InfraRedEd 8 years ago
InfraRedEd
http://www.debate.org...

Public duels between gay men from Great Yarmouth perhaps?
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
brian_egglestonSaintNickTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by numa 7 years ago
numa
brian_egglestonSaintNickTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
brian_egglestonSaintNickTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by SaintNick 7 years ago
SaintNick
brian_egglestonSaintNickTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by BellumQuodPacis 7 years ago
BellumQuodPacis
brian_egglestonSaintNickTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by LaSalle 8 years ago
LaSalle
brian_egglestonSaintNickTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Xer 8 years ago
Xer
brian_egglestonSaintNickTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by MTGandP 8 years ago
MTGandP
brian_egglestonSaintNickTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 8 years ago
Lexicaholic
brian_egglestonSaintNickTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
brian_egglestonSaintNickTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70