Posted by
Andrews on Saturday, June 13, 2009 2:19:21 PM
It just occurred to me that those who fight for "gay rights" are often
inappropriately sensitive. Now I will grant that sometimes they have a
point, that some arguments raised against allowing homosexuals to act
in certain capacities may be unfair. However, other times they take
umbrage at restrictions which are essentially identical to those under
which heterosexuals labor.
For example, when someone suggests that a gay man should not be placed
in charge of young boys, that he should not be conducting
sleep-away camps for Boy Scouts, homosexual groups will become
outraged, shouting that homosexuality is not the same as pedophilia,
that gay men are no more prone to molest children than straight men,
and so on.
However, when we say that we don't want a heterosexual man to conduct
sleep-away camps with young girls, everyone accepts that that is a
sensible precaution. We do not hear shouts about how heterosexuality is
not the same as pedophilia, or claims that gay men are just as likely
to molest children as straight men. Instead, we recognize that only one
in ten thousand men, maybe fewer, will molest a young girl, but it
still make sense to eliminate even this remote possibility.
So, why on earth is it offensive to keep men who are attracted to men
away from young boys, but just common sense to keep men who are
attracted to women away from young girls? Unless the gay rights
movement starts fighting for the right of heterosexual men to conduct
overnight trips with young girls, I have to assume that they are simply
looking for situations in which they can take offense.
ADDENDUM
What is interesting is, in both cases, we are perfectly content to entrust children of either sex to women of any sexual orientation. I understand the traditional stereotype of men as more prone to sexual aggression, but with the modern tendency toward more predatory women (could anyone imagine the term "cougar" existing 50 years ago? Or Mary Kay Letourneau?) , I wonder if that perception will change. Still, for the present the assumption is that a molester, of children of either sex, will be male, so it is understandable that people would be frightened of entrusting their children to men who are sexually attracted to that sex, be it male or female. Yes, full fledged pedophiles may molest outside of their sexual preference, but as children get closer to adulthood, I think it safe to say molesters tend to be those who will be attracted to them when they reach adulthood. That is 13 year old girls will be molested by heterosexuals, and 15 year old boys will be molested by homosexuals. Not as an absolute rule, but as a generalization it seems not unreasonable.
O the other hand, those who assume all homosexuals molest children are clearly deluded. But their error does not invalidate legitimate concerns of others. As I said, just because 99.99% of men would not molest young girls in their care, that does not make people comfortable allowing heterosexual men watch their young girls. To apply the same rule to homosexuals does not seem unduly prejudiced. It may be an excessive fear of strangers, but such is the current climate of our culture. My point being, justified or not, as it is applied across the boards, I can't see it as homophobic.