>>>>>>>>Many things that are today common practice would have been unimaginable just a few years ago. I'm telling you, in a few years down the road, you will have child offenders living their sexual preference and you are not allowed to judge them, because that would be discrimination.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Agreed. Look at the Boy Scouts in the US. They are being pressed by the press and the 'enlightened ones' to allow that now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nonsense. You're implying that every gay man is a child molester. In fact, the incidence of child molesters is the same for gay and straight adults.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I didn't imply anything oh queen of the enlightened ones. You seem to have come up with the idea.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Then, what did you mean by following "in a few years down the road, you will have child offenders living their sexual preference and you are not allowed to judge them" with " the Boy Scouts in the US ... are being pressed by the press and the 'enlightened ones' to allow that now"?
>>>>
>>>>Tamar
>>>
>>>The press and enlightened ones like you have been pushing to get god (and morality - part of the foundations of scouting) out of scouts, and now are pushing to have homosexuals placed in with the boys. Being competitive liberals, that of course won't be enough will it?
>>>
>>>The Boy Scouts as an organization is pretty much done for now because of this. Many troops have folded because they lost their charters (most are chartered through churches or other non-enlightened organizations). Opening the door by allowing openly homosexual scouts (kids 11-17 in an organization that disallows sexual activity during scouting activities) in guarantees that within a couple of years there will be many more suits as homosexuals try to get in a leaders of the boys (why?) - once that barrier breaks, the Boy Scouts will cease to exist.
>>>
>>>Perhaps the man-boy love scouts will be the replacement?
>>
>>IOW, you think that having gay leaders will lead to sexual abuse of children. I don't see how what you said can be interpreted any other way.
>>
>>That's such bs. You probably had gay teachers and gay leaders of extracurricular activities and never knew it. Pedophilia and homosexuality are not synonymous.
>>
>>Tamar
>
>>>Pedophilia and homosexuality are not synonymous.
>
>No, but they have one thing in common- having been a taboo.
>Homosexuality was once a taboo for scouts, but societal norms have changed and it is now accepted.
>Consensual sex between adults and children (if such a thing is possible) is still a taboo here in the US, but it is not in many other cultures and it has lots of precedence in our own.
>No one is sure but many think that Shakespeare's sonnets were written to one of the squeaky-voiced boys who played women in the Elizabethan theater before women were allowed on the stage (another taboo shattered!)
>One theory has the subject as young as 9 years old.
>
>If the greatest writer in our history can do it, why not a scoutmaster?

Another theory is that Shakespeare was a noble. Yet another is that he was a woman. It's impossible to know after all this time. (And yet some claim to know what happened over 2000 years ago). There is little disagreement that he was the greatest writer in history, as you say. And all in iambic pentameter.

An anecdote I like is about a lady who attends her first Shakespearean play. Afterward she is asked how she liked it. "It was all right," she says, "but so full of cliches."

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.