Underage boys should not be supervised by gay men

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.