Underage boys should not be supervised by gay men

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.