"First of all, the homosexual community is _way_ too quick to call "foul" on certain issues. That being said, I also think they have some valid points at times. The problem I have with them is, they act like they deserve some sort of special treatment because their "sexual orientation" (which is crap, IMO) is different what is normal. My belief is that people should be treated equally, regardless of the exterior factors as such. One thing that they have going against them... they are not (yet) a legally protected class under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or under the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Therefore, there is little basis for a discrimination claim under employment law. Of course, the bleeding heart courts decide on occasion to deem it discrimination anyway... something there's no real legal support or precedent for. As a parent, I wouldn't be too inclined to allow my daughter to join a Girl Scout Troop with a homosexual troop leader. Why? Because I'm not interested in my daughter being exposed to that. Now, if the troop leader could keep sexual issues out of things, then yeah... I have no problem. But the facts are, a good portion of that community is very active in proclaiming and promoting their lifestyle, something I have moralistic problems with. Should, then, homosexuals not be allowed to be troop leaders in the Scouts? That's the decision of the organization. There are no defined legal parameters, which means each business makes their decisions. If they don't feel good about it, they shouldn't allow it." -john

"Most of the homosexuals and lesbians I know wouldn't be teaching kids and say 'Yes, children, I have SEX with my own KIND' nor would a heterosexual woman tell her troop 'Yes, children, I have SEX with MEN!' When it comes down to camping and doing activities, I don't think sexual interest has anything to do with it. A lesbian troop leader isn't trying to persuade children to turn lesbian, nor is a heterosexual troop leader trying to get her kids to have sex." -annette

"That is true, to an extent. But there are those who try to push their homosexuality onto others. I've seen them, heard them, met them. I'm not stereotyping all homosexuals into that category, mind you... but I'm not closing my eyes to the fact that those people are out there. That's not the place for that. Same thing with a troop leader who is, for lack of a better term, a whorebag. I wouldn't be too interested in my daughter being in a troop with a leader like that, either... IF that person is open in talking about their sex life with the kids. I probably sound like a bigot here, which I'm not trying to do. I'm not saying I wouldn't allow my daughter to be in a troop with a homosexual leader... but I'm going to be making sure of certain things first." -john

"I will resign my status as an American if gays are ever given protection under any legislation designed for minorities or whatever. They, as a group, are no more deserving of special protections than any other group of people. This is not my main post but I will play off this thread. Groups such as the Boy Scouts should be entitled to choose who teaches or leads in their organization. I personally don't want gay teachers, troop leaders, etc. having any influence on children. Being gay is already becoming too "fashionable" as it is. And it makes me sick that organizations like the Boy Scouts should be forced out of holding their meetings in schools because they choose to uphold their beliefs in something sacred to them. Gays are not entitled to special protection under the law. The law states that a marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Period! It's been that way for 1000's of years and should remain that way. I am not advocating discrimination against anyone. They can live their lived however they see fit but when they try to change the laws to reflect their immorality, that's when the rest of us have to stand up and say...enough." -dave

"Dave Dave Dave come ON! Michigan law states that it's illegal for a woman to cut her own hair without her husband's permission. It's against the law in Alabama to have an ice cream cone in your back pocket. In Florida, you might be thrown in jail if you're caught having sex with a porcupine or kissing your wife's breasts. My point? Just because it's a *law* doesn't mean it's a *good law*. As far as getting 'special rights', most gays I know don't want special rights - they want basic rights. Little things we take for granted like health insurance covered under our spouses." -annette

"*Little things we take for granted like health insurance covered under our spouses.* I could almost buy into this for the same reason that I think it is wrong to deny life partners decision making powers when it comes to their affairs during terminal situations. Living Wills, Wishes on dying with dignity, that type of thing. This is a tricky legal issue because of the way that Americans seize every little crack and insist on ripping huge holes in our legal system. If a judge tries to do the compassionate thing and pass a law giving life partners those rights or legalizing marriage for the express purpose of allowing the same money based benefits (health insurance, tax credits, etc)then some shyster lawyer for the ACLU or GLADD or Some other stupid acronym organization takes it as precedent and totally twists it out of recognition. And that is where the problem lies. There is no common sense anymore. I am sure that most compassionate, caring people would not have a problem with gay relationships enjoying those benefits. As Mr. Bacharach said long ago, 'What the world needs now, is love, sweet love' Damn civil rights lawyers ruin everything. I said I could almost buy into that arguement and I would totally support it if the rights were specific and unassailable. But my thought is why do gay couples need health insurance benefits of spouses. The reason behind that benefit is so that one partner can stay home and raise the kiddies. Since gay couples should NOT be allowed to adopt or inseminate of wierd science children then it becomes a moot point. I know that is weak but I like the thought and it allowed to get in one more dig at the idea that it is ok for same sex couples to raise children. No NO a 1000 times no!!
Daveism: This country is so concerned about being accepting and accomodating and tolerant that is is forgetting about basic concepts of right and wrong. Just because a cause is fashionable or popular doesnt mean it is right. And I feel sorry for those without the moral compass to know what is right and what is wrong in your soul and heart. The concept of situational ethics doesn't work. And unfortunately in this country, there are gray areas and some innocents do fall thru the cracks but we can't legislate every single aspect of human behaivor. And when we try, we get the over-crowded prisons, failed drug war, under-funded social programs, etc. that we have had in America for the last 20-30 years." -dave

prev|ep6chapters|next
home|episodes|contestants|info|opinions|communication|links
this website is not an official website of abc's the mole or any of the mole televised shows. this website does not reflect the opinions or thoughts of the producers of the televised shows. all content (words and images) on this website is owned and copyrighted to cybeteur productions. no images on http://thecybermole.tripod.com have been borrowed except for the ads (obviously). if you find any problem (legal or technical) with this website, please email the webmaster and explain the problem.
copyright 2001.