Freedom of Speech (was: Sexual Harassment Laws... )
Clayton Cramer
> In article <89...@optilink.UUCP> cra...@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <3rp...@lynx.unm.edu>, bev...@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
> >> In article <88...@optilink.UUCP> cra...@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >> >In article <lgf...@lynx.unm.edu>, bev...@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
# #Why does your life require large scale government funding?
#
# Where did I say that my life required large scale government funding?
#
# I said that I might not be able to live my life as I see fit...and I
# can't, Clayton. I am not allowed to marry the man of my choosing
# because it is illegal for two men to marry.
#
# I can be put in jail in 23 states for having mutually consenting sex
# with the man of my choice because there are sodomy laws.
So you are objecting to Big Government -- while saying we need more
of it. Did I miss something?
# I can be prevented from adopting children because society thinks that
# gay people are evil pederasts just waiting to corrupt children...and
# we can't have them making any more gay people.
If the gay community weren't so damn supportive of child molestation
(though of course, they have different phrases to describe adults
going after eight year olds), perhaps the perception wouldn't exist.
# I don't need government funding to live that part of my life the way I
# see fit. I need the government to take it's collective head out of
# its ass and do what's right.
#
# Clayton, I am just as scared of the Politically Correct/Big Brother
# menace that exists in this country as you are. I don't need the
# government telling me how to live my life.
#
# But, that means that I have to force society to stop sticking its nose
# into my business.
So why are you using government to force OTHER people to live the
way you want them to? Why the need for the government to FORCE me
to fund art? Why the need for the government to FORCE me to hire
people based on their sexual orientation? What you mean is, now
that you control the government, you'll screw the rest of us.
# #I don't want to live in a society of liberal elitists, telling
# #what to do for my own good. But here's the difference: you insist
# #on using force to make me go along with your agenda; I insist that
# #you have no right to force me to go along. You are the supporter
# #of a violent and aggressive ideology, one that insists that because
# #you are right, you are free to engage in acts of violence against
# #peaceful people.
#
# Peaceful people? PEACEFUL PEOPLE?!?
Yes. I've done nothing to you -- but you have your goons forcing
me to fund your pet art projects.
# Clayton, one-third of all teenage suicides are commited because the
# youth thought he was gay and couldn't handle it because society has
# told him he was an evil person.
Who forced him? You mean that he couldn't handle disapproval. If
disapproval caused suicide, there wouldn't be many people left alive.
You don't suppose that gay suicide might have more to do with being
child sexual abuse victims, do you?
# I have been very lucky in that I have never been physicall assaulted
# because of my sexuality, but I know many people who have.
You've claimed to be a rape victim before. Which is it?
# I have seen the way this society refused to do anything about AIDS
# because it "only affected gay men and IV drug users."
You mean the government hasn't forced anyone to take care of you
and your group. The LACK of force is FORCE to you. Huh?
# I have seen this society only take notice when Ryan White, Kimberly
# Bergalis, and Magic Johnson got HIV, but not when Rock Hudson, what's-
# his-face from Queen who just died, Liberace, and all the other non-
# straight people who got it.
It didn't take notice of Rock Hudson? Liberace? These were all
multiday news stories.
# And what did Magic Johnson do? He placed himself as the spokesman for
# the children and heterosexuals who got HIV...the "I ain't no
# homosexual" piece on _Arsenio._
#
# A federal judge recently ruled that the DoD policy of barring gay
# people from the military was justified because of the "risk of AIDS"
# even though lesbians are the lowest risk group.
#
# We have the Traditional Values Coalition in California fighting every
# single attempt to make society just and fair for gay people.
#
# We have Gov. Wilson vetoing AB101 putting sexual orientation into the
# anti-discrimination act for employment claiming that it would be "bad
# for business" as if barring discrimination against race, gender, etc.
# isn't.
You mean, interfering with your little system of coercion and threats
for those who refuse to do as you demand.
# I get death threats from people who read my posts in alt.sex because I
# happen to mention homosexuality.
#
# Peaceful people, indeed.
#
# --
# Brian Evans |If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would
I don't threaten you -- yet you still justify sending your thugs around
to force me to do what you want.
Looking for aggressive, violent people? Go to any Democratic Party
activity. They live for a system of violence and theft.
--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer My opinions, all mine!
Bush or the Democratic nominee? What's my next choice? Beaten to death, or
strangled?
Mathemagician
>In article <_rpf...@lynx.unm.edu>, bev...@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes...
>>What I said was that if the government is going to fund health care,
>>then it is going to have to go along with *all* of it. It can't pick
>>and choose what parts it's going to allow. And, the Supreme Court
>>agrees: The government is not allowed to provide a forum for views it
>>finds acceptable while denying it to views it finds less acceptable or
>>more controversial.
>So, you wouldn't object to the government going along with "art" that
>promotes hatred of other races or minority groups? Just hypothetical,
>but do you see the point? Suppose this "art" was funded by the NEA?
Nope. I would be very pissed at the artist, but the NEA funds works
that promotes hatred of other races or minority groups already (or has
in the past). The NEA doesn't fund "frivolous" works, no matter how
much the funnymentalists tell you it does. There's a point to every
piece that receives money to put it on display for all to see. Simply
"promoting hatred of other races or minority groups" is not "art."
That may be a theme incorporated into the piece, but it doesn't make
it worthy of national attention.
Take a look at the Folger Library that does so much Shakespeare.
There's some pretty horrible stuff that he wrote. _The Merchant of
Venice_ is constantly being reviled as anti-Semitic. And given the
time that it was written, it probably is. But, that doesn't mean it
isn't good theatre. That doesn't mean that there isn't something in
there to be learned. That doesn't mean it should be banned.
Since I believe in the First Amendment so much, I cannot make
exceptions to it without setting a dangerous precedent. I know, I
know, "slippery slope" and all that, but I see it happening all the
time. First, it was burning the flag and people laughed because it
was a "silly case." However, it was taken very seriously by the
Supreme Court. Next comes counseling about abortion.
>Do you still think the "government is not allowed to provide a forum for
>views it finds acceptable while denying it to views it finds less
>acceptable or more controversial"?
Yes, I do. I am frightened beyond all belief of the possibility of
the government denying the ability to speak to one group while
granting it to another because one day, that group that's denied is
going to be *my* group...in fact, it already is. All funding issues
that pertain to sex education are not allowed to "promote
homosexuality as valid."
>>If it's going to fund pre-pregnancy counseling, then it's going to
>>have to fund talk about abortion as a viable option should
>>contraception fail.
>>The government, in essence, does not have the right to an opinion.
>Let's see. "Government by the people". So, if the _people_ are funding
>something, you are saying that the _people_ have no right to an opinion,
>even though it is _our_ money that's being spent?
Government by the lowest common denominator.
Yes, I am saying that the people have no right to an opinion even
though it's our money that's being spent. It's been given to the
government and that takes it out of our hands. The Constitution tells
us that we are to promote the general welfare. Does that mean that if
you don't like me, I don't get to have my general welfare promoted?
Does that mean that if you can't provide one rational basis for
denying me my inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness, I don't get to have them? (Yes, I know that's in the
Declaration of Independence, but go with it.)
I don't know who said it, but "tyranny of the majority" is the exact
reason *why* the government is not entitled to an opinion. Women
voting? Are you nuts? Blacks allowed the same rights as Whites? You
must be crazy! It is these things that I am railing against and I
cannot make exceptions simply because I don't like what some person is
spouting as gospel truth.
If I reserve my right to speak...if I reserve my right to exist, then
I cannot deny it to others simply because I don't like it or I think
that I "know better."
--
Brian Evans |If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would
bev...@carina.unm.edu|be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's Scientific Method!
Mathemagician
>In article <lpt...@lynx.unm.edu>, bev...@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
># I said that I might not be able to live my life as I see fit...and I
># can't, Clayton. I am not allowed to marry the man of my choosing
># because it is illegal for two men to marry.
># I can be put in jail in 23 states for having mutually consenting sex
># with the man of my choice because there are sodomy laws.
>So you are objecting to Big Government -- while saying we need more
>of it. Did I miss something?
Yep, you sure did.
But, since you are completely unwilling to listen, completely off base
as far as reality goes, I am weary of trying to convince you otherwise.
># I can be prevented from adopting children because society thinks that
># gay people are evil pederasts just waiting to corrupt children...and
># we can't have them making any more gay people.
>If the gay community weren't so damn supportive of child molestation
>(though of course, they have different phrases to describe adults
>going after eight year olds), perhaps the perception wouldn't exist.
Come on, Clayton, you can say it: NAMBLA...the North American Man-Boy
Love Association.
Clayton, if you were to take your head out of your fucking ass for
*ONCE,* you would find that NAMBLA is generally scorned by the "gay
community" (whatever that is).
Gays support the molestation of children? Just where on earth did you
find that tidbit of information?
You are quickly losing any credibility you might have had, Clayton.
># Clayton, I am just as scared of the Politically Correct/Big Brother
># menace that exists in this country as you are. I don't need the
># government telling me how to live my life.
># But, that means that I have to force society to stop sticking its nose
># into my business.
>So why are you using government to force OTHER people to live the
>way you want them to? Why the need for the government to FORCE me
>to fund art? Why the need for the government to FORCE me to hire
>people based on their sexual orientation? What you mean is, now
>that you control the government, you'll screw the rest of us.
*I* control the government? I am *forcing* you to hire people based
on their sexual orientation? Where the hell have I said such a thing?
You haven't read a single word I've said, have you, Clayton. If you
had, you would know that I am against Affirmative Action.
Why support art? Because art is part of the "general welfare" which
our government is supposed to promote. Art makes people think.
Science only goes so far...where Science quits, Art starts.
># Peaceful people? PEACEFUL PEOPLE?!?
>Yes. I've done nothing to you -- but you have your goons forcing
>me to fund your pet art projects.
You've done nothing to me? What was that little crack about "forcing
you to hire someone on the basis of his sexuality"? What was that
little crack about "gays supporting the molestation of children"?
You cannot make disparaging remarks about gays without personally
insulting *ME,* Clayton. I don't expect you to like gay sex. I don't
even expect you to like me. However, I *demand* that you give me the
respect you would any other human being.
># Clayton, one-third of all teenage suicides are commited because the
># youth thought he was gay and couldn't handle it because society has
># told him he was an evil person.
>Who forced him? You mean that he couldn't handle disapproval. If
>disapproval caused suicide, there wouldn't be many people left alive.
>You don't suppose that gay suicide might have more to do with being
>child sexual abuse victims, do you?
You really don't know, do you, Clayton?
Clayton, imagine growing up in a world that told you that you are an
evil, gross, disgusting, pervert who wants to molest children because
you're straight. Every book, every magazine, every film, every play,
every commercial, every billboard, everybody is telling you that you
are wrong and evil. Everyone expects you to be gay and has quite
clearly implied that if you aren't, you deserve to be dead.
"Disapproval"? That's not disapproval, Clayton. That's doing
everything but pushing you off a 20-story building.
No, Clayton. I don't suppose that gay suidice might have anything to
do with being shild sexual abuse victims. And I say this because
people who molest children are more likely to be heterosexual than
homosexual (over 90% of abusers identify as heterosexual.)
Clayton, you know not of what you speak.
># I have been very lucky in that I have never been physicall assaulted
># because of my sexuality, but I know many people who have.
>You've claimed to be a rape victim before. Which is it?
It was a woman who did it to me in order to prove I wasn't gay. I
haven't been the victim of someone beating me up because I'm a
"faggot."
Take it as you will.
># I have seen the way this society refused to do anything about AIDS
># because it "only affected gay men and IV drug users."
>You mean the government hasn't forced anyone to take care of you
>and your group. The LACK of force is FORCE to you. Huh?
"Me and my group"? Just what the fuck is that supposed to mean?
People are dying and the government *refuses* to do anything about it
because of the type of people and you don't see anything *wrong* with
that? I'm not asking the government to hospitalise people. I'm
asking them to actually make an attempt at finding a cure.
># I have seen this society only take notice when Ryan White, Kimberly
># Bergalis, and Magic Johnson got HIV, but not when Rock Hudson, what's-
># his-face from Queen who just died, Liberace, and all the other non-
># straight people who got it.
>It didn't take notice of Rock Hudson? Liberace? These were all
>multiday news stories.
And what did they say about Rock and Liberace, huh? Any sentiments
about how horrible it was that they had AIDS? how terrible it was that
someone like them should be infected with HIV? any sympathy at *all*
for them and their families?
Nope. They had sexual relations with men and they deserved it.
># We have Gov. Wilson vetoing AB101 putting sexual orientation into the
># anti-discrimination act for employment claiming that it would be "bad
># for business" as if barring discrimination against race, gender, etc.
># isn't.
>You mean, interfering with your little system of coercion and threats
>for those who refuse to do as you demand.
What system of coercion and threats? Just what is so unreasonable
about demanding to be treated like a human being?
Tell me, Clayton, if you had a child who was gay, what would you do?
># Peaceful people, indeed.
>I don't threaten you -- yet you still justify sending your thugs around
>to force me to do what you want.
You don't threaten me? What was that little crack about "little
system of coercion and threats for those who refuse to do as you
demand"?
>Looking for aggressive, violent people? Go to any Democratic Party
>activity. They live for a system of violence and theft.
And Republicans don't? What world do you live in, Clayton?
--
Brian Evans |If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would
Jeff LaCoss
>that agrees with you that a social program is needed. You may find
>me in agreement on some programs, and I'll help. But you need to
>PERSUADE me, rather than using the liberal's tool, which is to send
>goons from the government to FORCE me to contribute.
I like that. Brings to mind the late 60's, doesn't it? The only thing
us free-thinking folk had to fear was a visit from the club- or
gun-totin' stooges of "the system."
Ah, me. People have become so strident in their outlook.
Lookit. I'm really tired of
- people blasting "social programs."
Did anyone out there get a government loan or grant to go to
school? (Or attend a public school, for that matter.) If so, your
position is eroded pretty badly. Time to go re-assess.
- people using labels indiscriminately to push their point. Creating
a pseudo-species to group people or make them different is
horseshit. It's intellectual dishonesty aimed at evading a
straightforward discussion of the actual issues.
Is there anything wrong with being a liberal?
I think not.
Radical?
Reactionary?
Buchananite?
- people pushing the "rights" of their "group" to force some change
where the system offends them.
The bottom line is their group/race/sex/whatever
DOESN'T HAVE ANY SPECIAL RIGHTS GOD DAMN IT
Do these groups have the "right" to not be offended?
Don't think so.
Do these groups have the "right" to force me to be quiet so I can't
offend?
Not a chance.
Do these groups have the "right" to have their Constitutional rights
protected?
Absolutely.
Do these groups have the "right" to exercise freedom of choice in
language, religion, mode of dress?
Absolutely - but....
Freedom is responsibility. Any choice to live outside the
"mainstream" culture may incur some cost. People have to take
responsibility to assess for themselves whether they are
picking the wrong fight.
As a (limited) for instance: If I am seeking an engineer, and I
have a choice of 2 who are technically qualified, but one doesn't
speak more than rudimentary English, who am I going to hire? The
ESL person can't do engineering unless the language skills are in
place. Am I discriminating? Yep - between someone who can do the
job and someone who can't. Bring the language skills up to par
(shoot, even sub-par - I'll take a chance 'cause I like teaching)
and I'd hire this person without a second thought. Learning a new
language takes time, but all my ancestors did it.
Mild flame:
I can't understand how the "conservative" viewpoint has managed to
survive for so long. If "consrvative" is taken to mean "in favor of
preserving the status quo," we have to define what time period we're
talking about.
- I don't see many conservatives struggling to preserve the "typical"
1991 value system.
- Do we reinstate the 1950's value system? Damn fool idealism. Those
days are gone. People have changed too much to go back.
- Hasn't anyone in the last few administrations read Santayana's most
famous quote?
(Given the state of affairs I'm afraid the "average" voter seldom
reads more than beer labels and broadcast listings for sports events.)
Flames to the net, please.
Jeff
Matthew T. Russotto
>In article <88...@optilink.UUCP> cra...@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>No. Get the government out of it. YOU do it -- you, and everyone
>>that agrees with you that a social program is needed. You may find
>>me in agreement on some programs, and I'll help. But you need to
>>PERSUADE me, rather than using the liberal's tool, which is to send
>>goons from the government to FORCE me to contribute.
>
> I like that. Brings to mind the late 60's, doesn't it? The only thing
>us free-thinking folk had to fear was a visit from the club- or
>gun-totin' stooges of "the system."
> Ah, me. People have become so strident in their outlook.
>
> Lookit. I'm really tired of
> - people blasting "social programs."
> Did anyone out there get a government loan or grant to go to
> school? (Or attend a public school, for that matter.) If so, your
> position is eroded pretty badly. Time to go re-assess.
Nice try. But there is no debt to the government (or intellectual debt to
'social programs') owed by those who take advantage of those programs. We
are simply trying to get back -- in some form -- what the government takes.
> - people using labels indiscriminately to push their point. Creating
> a pseudo-species to group people or make them different is
> horseshit. It's intellectual dishonesty aimed at evading a
> straightforward discussion of the actual issues.
>
> Is there anything wrong with being a liberal?
> I think not.
But I think so (if you mean a modern liberal)
> Radical?
Nope. As long as your radical ideas are close to mine. :-)
> Reactionary?
Nope. As long as your reactionary ideas are close to mine. :-)
> Buchananite?
Yep. Especially on trade policy.
> - people pushing the "rights" of their "group" to force some change
> where the system offends them.
> The bottom line is their group/race/sex/whatever
> DOESN'T HAVE ANY SPECIAL RIGHTS GOD DAMN IT
Agreed here-- but I don't want to force people to stop talking about it.
So we can be tired of it but can't do anything about it.
> Mild flame:
> I can't understand how the "conservative" viewpoint has managed to
>survive for so long. If "consrvative" is taken to mean "in favor of
>preserving the status quo," we have to define what time period we're
>talking about.
Status quo ante-- where the 'ante' is the nearest 'golden age' (which only
exist in hindsight with rose-colored glasses, to mix a metaphor)
> (Given the state of affairs I'm afraid the "average" voter seldom
>reads more than beer labels and broadcast listings for sports events.)
Water, Hops, Barley... :-)
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@eng.umd.edu russ...@wam.umd.edu
Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons! -- The Simpsons
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
Clayton Cramer
> In article <89...@optilink.UUCP> cra...@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <lpt...@lynx.unm.edu>, bev...@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
# ## can't, Clayton. I am not allowed to marry the man of my choosing
# ## because it is illegal for two men to marry.
#
# ## I can be put in jail in 23 states for having mutually consenting sex
# ## with the man of my choice because there are sodomy laws.
#
# #So you are objecting to Big Government -- while saying we need more
# #of it. Did I miss something?
#
# Yep, you sure did.
#
# But, since you are completely unwilling to listen, completely off base
# as far as reality goes, I am weary of trying to convince you otherwise.
What's off base? You claim you are worried about the government
taking away your rights -- and so demand more of it.
# ## I can be prevented from adopting children because society thinks that
# ## gay people are evil pederasts just waiting to corrupt children...and
# ## we can't have them making any more gay people.
#
# #If the gay community weren't so damn supportive of child molestation
# #(though of course, they have different phrases to describe adults
# #going after eight year olds), perhaps the perception wouldn't exist.
#
# Come on, Clayton, you can say it: NAMBLA...the North American Man-Boy
# Love Association.
#
# Clayton, if you were to take your head out of your fucking ass for
# *ONCE,* you would find that NAMBLA is generally scorned by the "gay
# community" (whatever that is).
You wouldn't know it from reading soc.motss, where voiced support for
NAMBLA definitely exceeds opposition.
# Gays support the molestation of children? Just where on earth did you
# find that tidbit of information?
Soc.motss.
# ## Clayton, I am just as scared of the Politically Correct/Big Brother
# ## menace that exists in this country as you are. I don't need the
# ## government telling me how to live my life.
#
# ## But, that means that I have to force society to stop sticking its nose
# ## into my business.
#
# #So why are you using government to force OTHER people to live the
# #way you want them to? Why the need for the government to FORCE me
# #to fund art? Why the need for the government to FORCE me to hire
# #people based on their sexual orientation? What you mean is, now
# #that you control the government, you'll screw the rest of us.
#
# *I* control the government? I am *forcing* you to hire people based
# on their sexual orientation? Where the hell have I said such a thing?
# You haven't read a single word I've said, have you, Clayton. If you
# had, you would know that I am against Affirmative Action.
You mean you don't support laws that require employers to hire
homosexuals?
# Why support art? Because art is part of the "general welfare" which
# our government is supposed to promote. Art makes people think.
# Science only goes so far...where Science quits, Art starts.
I'm sure that you could find a majority of Americans willing to make
the same argument for government subsidies to religion. But most
intelligent people recognize such an argument as nonsense.
# ## Peaceful people? PEACEFUL PEOPLE?!?
#
# #Yes. I've done nothing to you -- but you have your goons forcing
# #me to fund your pet art projects.
#
# You've done nothing to me? What was that little crack about "forcing
# you to hire someone on the basis of his sexuality"? What was that
# little crack about "gays supporting the molestation of children"?
#
# You cannot make disparaging remarks about gays without personally
# insulting *ME,* Clayton. I don't expect you to like gay sex. I don't
# even expect you to like me. However, I *demand* that you give me the
# respect you would any other human being.
So you admit that I haven't forced you to do anything. I've said
things you don't want to hear -- and you DEMAND that I stop doing
that. Funny, but if the situation were reversed -- if I DEMANDED
that homosexuals stop offending straights -- it would be recognized
as a call for censorship.
# ## Clayton, one-third of all teenage suicides are commited because the
# ## youth thought he was gay and couldn't handle it because society has
# ## told him he was an evil person.
#
# #Who forced him? You mean that he couldn't handle disapproval. If
# #disapproval caused suicide, there wouldn't be many people left alive.
# #You don't suppose that gay suicide might have more to do with being
# #child sexual abuse victims, do you?
#
# You really don't know, do you, Clayton?
#
# Clayton, imagine growing up in a world that told you that you are an
# evil, gross, disgusting, pervert who wants to molest children because
# you're straight. Every book, every magazine, every film, every play,
# every commercial, every billboard, everybody is telling you that you
# are wrong and evil. Everyone expects you to be gay and has quite
# clearly implied that if you aren't, you deserve to be dead.
#
# "Disapproval"? That's not disapproval, Clayton. That's doing
# everything but pushing you off a 20-story building.
#
# No, Clayton. I don't suppose that gay suidice might have anything to
# do with being shild sexual abuse victims. And I say this because
# people who molest children are more likely to be heterosexual than
# homosexual (over 90% of abusers identify as heterosexual.)
I keep asking for sources for your claim -- and I don't get them.
Whether someone claims to be straight or gay isn't very meaningful,
if the molestor goes after a child of the same sex.
# ## I have seen the way this society refused to do anything about AIDS
# ## because it "only affected gay men and IV drug users."
#
# #You mean the government hasn't forced anyone to take care of you
# #and your group. The LACK of force is FORCE to you. Huh?
#
# "Me and my group"? Just what the fuck is that supposed to mean?
# People are dying and the government *refuses* to do anything about it
# because of the type of people and you don't see anything *wrong* with
# that? I'm not asking the government to hospitalise people. I'm
# asking them to actually make an attempt at finding a cure.
They are. They are spending enormous sums of money on research and
direct assistance, and you LIE by saying that the government
"*refuses* to do anything about it".
# ## I have seen this society only take notice when Ryan White, Kimberly
# ## Bergalis, and Magic Johnson got HIV, but not when Rock Hudson, what's-
# ## his-face from Queen who just died, Liberace, and all the other non-
# ## straight people who got it.
#
# #It didn't take notice of Rock Hudson? Liberace? These were all
# #multiday news stories.
#
# And what did they say about Rock and Liberace, huh? Any sentiments
# about how horrible it was that they had AIDS? how terrible it was that
# someone like them should be infected with HIV? any sympathy at *all*
# for them and their families?
#
# Nope. They had sexual relations with men and they deserved it.
What are you talking about? There was constant whining about how
sad it was that Rock Hudson died of AIDS. (It was sad -- but don't
give this nonsense about lack of sympathy).
# ## We have Gov. Wilson vetoing AB101 putting sexual orientation into the
# ## anti-discrimination act for employment claiming that it would be "bad
# ## for business" as if barring discrimination against race, gender, etc.
# ## isn't.
#
# #You mean, interfering with your little system of coercion and threats
# #for those who refuse to do as you demand.
#
# What system of coercion and threats? Just what is so unreasonable
# about demanding to be treated like a human being?
What's unreasonable is that it is more of the same Big Government
that you claim is oppressive. That runs both ways. In California,
homosexuals largely control the Legislature through their dominance
of the Democratic Party. If you don't want the government oppressing
you, don't oppress others.
# Tell me, Clayton, if you had a child who was gay, what would you do?
Find a psychologist to help him.
# ## Peaceful people, indeed.
#
# #I don't threaten you -- yet you still justify sending your thugs around
# #to force me to do what you want.
#
# You don't threaten me? What was that little crack about "little
# system of coercion and threats for those who refuse to do as you
# demand"?
How does it threaten you to point out that you threaten me? Do
you have some problem understanding simple English?
# #Looking for aggressive, violent people? Go to any Democratic Party
# #activity. They live for a system of violence and theft.
#
# And Republicans don't? What world do you live in, Clayton?
#
# Brian Evans |If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would
This is typical of liberals -- they live in a black and white
world, where every choice is binary -- they are unable to imagine
that expressing disapproval of the Democrats doesn't imply
approval of the Republicans.
I've voted for one Republican in the last 10 years.
Merlyn LeRoy
>In article <#2zf...@lynx.unm.edu>, bev...@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
># #If the gay community weren't so damn supportive of child molestation
># #(though of course, they have different phrases to describe adults
># #going after eight year olds), perhaps the perception wouldn't exist.
>#
># *ONCE,* you would find that NAMBLA is generally scorned by the "gay
># community" (whatever that is).
>You wouldn't know it from reading soc.motss, where voiced support for
>NAMBLA definitely exceeds opposition.
I could've sworn I just read (a few articles previous) Cramer attacking
the validity of the Kinsey report because the respondents were self-selected;
now it seems he doesn't mind self-selection if the results are what he wants.
Oh well, so much for consistency.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Mathemagician
>In article <#2zf...@lynx.unm.edu>, bev...@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
># But, since you are completely unwilling to listen, completely off base
># as far as reality goes, I am weary of trying to convince you otherwise.
>What's off base? You claim you are worried about the government
>taking away your rights -- and so demand more of it.
What "more" government? The government doesn't "supervise" the NEA.
It only funds it. The people who make NEA decisions are artists, not
government people.
># Come on, Clayton, you can say it: NAMBLA...the North American Man-Boy
># Love Association.
># Clayton, if you were to take your head out of your fucking ass for
># *ONCE,* you would find that NAMBLA is generally scorned by the "gay
># community" (whatever that is).
>You wouldn't know it from reading soc.motss, where voiced support for
>NAMBLA definitely exceeds opposition.
And what are these arguments, Clayton? That people who consent to a
certain activity shouldn't be persected? The attitude on soc.motss is
that if the people involved want it, what's wrong with it? Nobody on
that group or "supports" NAMBLA is saying that all boys want sex with
older men or want sex. Nobody is consenting to the rape of anybody.
They're saying that if the boy wants it and if the man wants it, who
are we to say they shouldn't do it?
># Gays support the molestation of children? Just where on earth did you
># find that tidbit of information?
>Soc.motss.
If I recall the arguments correctly, you didn't get this from
soc.motss but from your own mind on what you *wish* they would have
said. What is so special about the age of 21? 18? 16? Just when does
someone gain the ability to make decisions for himself and why does it
come at a certain age? That is what they are arguing. They don't
want anybody raped, but they are extending the concept of the right to
control one's own body to everybody...in other words, just because
someone is a child does not mean that his Constitutional rights are
null and void.
># *I* control the government? I am *forcing* you to hire people based
># on their sexual orientation? Where the hell have I said such a thing?
># You haven't read a single word I've said, have you, Clayton. If you
># had, you would know that I am against Affirmative Action.
>You mean you don't support laws that require employers to hire
>homosexuals?
No, I don't, Clayton. I never have and have never implied such. I am
against discrimination, yes, but I am also against "preferences." In
fact, I don't like anti-discrimination statutes that list categories
of "protected classes." I would much rather they list what criteria
*are* allowable. For example, the only criterion for housing should
be the ability to pay the rent. The only criterion for employment
would be specific qualifications required for the job (to be listed by
the employer).
># Why support art? Because art is part of the "general welfare" which
># our government is supposed to promote. Art makes people think.
># Science only goes so far...where Science quits, Art starts.
>I'm sure that you could find a majority of Americans willing to make
>the same argument for government subsidies to religion. But most
>intelligent people recognize such an argument as nonsense.
The government already subsidizes religion by not collecting taxes.
Too, such subsidization is against the First Amendment.
># You've done nothing to me? What was that little crack about "forcing
># you to hire someone on the basis of his sexuality"? What was that
># little crack about "gays supporting the molestation of children"?
># You cannot make disparaging remarks about gays without personally
># insulting *ME,* Clayton. I don't expect you to like gay sex. I don't
># even expect you to like me. However, I *demand* that you give me the
># respect you would any other human being.
>So you admit that I haven't forced you to do anything. I've said
>things you don't want to hear -- and you DEMAND that I stop doing
>that. Funny, but if the situation were reversed -- if I DEMANDED
>that homosexuals stop offending straights -- it would be recognized
>as a call for censorship.
That isn't what I said and you know it, Clayton. Now, off the top of
my head, I can't say that you, personally, have done anything to me.
However, I don't know all of what you've done. Your inability to
recognise established studies makes me feel that you have actively
opposed civil rights for homosexuals.
No, I'm not asking that I never be offended. I'm asking that I be
allowed to live my life as I see fit without you sticking your ugly
face in it. I demand that you treat me with the same respect that you
would give any other human. Thus, if you would allow a man and a
woman to marry, then I demand that you allow two men to marry. If you
would allow a straight person to obtain housing anywhere he was able
to afford, then I demand that you allow a gay person to do the same.
I don't ask you to like me. I ask you to allow me to do the same
things that you would do or allow others to do.
Is that so difficult to understand?
># No, Clayton. I don't suppose that gay suidice might have anything to
># do with being shild sexual abuse victims. And I say this because
># people who molest children are more likely to be heterosexual than
># homosexual (over 90% of abusers identify as heterosexual.)
>I keep asking for sources for your claim -- and I don't get them.
>Whether someone claims to be straight or gay isn't very meaningful,
>if the molestor goes after a child of the same sex.
You haven't asked for this source. And off the top of my head, I
can't give you journal and issue.
Clayton, homosexuality is not defined by behaviour but by feelings.
Pederasty is unrelated to gender sexuality. About two-thirds of the
men in this country will have a homosexual experience to orgasm, but I
wouldn't call all such men gay or even bisexual. I know many men who
have had girlfriends, even married women, but weren't straight or
bisexual but gay. I know men who have had sex with men but weren't
gay or bisexual but straight.
A _20/20_ report about men who acquire HIV and pass it to their wives
went into sex in public toilets. They stated that about 80% of the
men who have sex in public toilets are straight. Yeah, they're having
sex with men, but that doesn't make them gay.
Boys are more likely to be the victims of physical sexual abuse
(actual sexual contact and not just peeping...and I *do* have
references for this). This is mainly because little boys are easier
to get at than little girls.
># "Me and my group"? Just what the fuck is that supposed to mean?
># People are dying and the government *refuses* to do anything about it
># because of the type of people and you don't see anything *wrong* with
># that? I'm not asking the government to hospitalise people. I'm
># asking them to actually make an attempt at finding a cure.
>They are. They are spending enormous sums of money on research and
>direct assistance, and you LIE by saying that the government
>"*refuses* to do anything about it".
They're doing something *now,* yes. What about in 1981 when it first
came about? Why did Reagon not even *mention* AIDS until 1986? Why
was acquiring funding next to impossible until "nice" people started
getting it? Why was nothing done until "nice" people who got it
through transfusions started becoming a major risk?
And just what *is* being done? The price of AZT was exorbitant until
ACT-UP scared the company (I forget which it is) by their protests.
The FDA refuses to allow experimental treatments to be used on humans
that are dying. And when you *do* get into an experimental treatment,
you have to be next to death to get in instead of in the early stages
of the infection.
># And what did they say about Rock and Liberace, huh? Any sentiments
># about how horrible it was that they had AIDS? how terrible it was that
># someone like them should be infected with HIV? any sympathy at *all*
># for them and their families?
># Nope. They had sexual relations with men and they deserved it.
>What are you talking about? There was constant whining about how
>sad it was that Rock Hudson died of AIDS. (It was sad -- but don't
>give this nonsense about lack of sympathy).
You don't give the entire story. Yeah, people were sad that he had
died of AIDS, but only because they thought he was straight. They
were also whining that he turned out not to be straight. One of their
heroes was dead...but he wasn't what they thought he was.
># What system of coercion and threats? Just what is so unreasonable
># about demanding to be treated like a human being?
>What's unreasonable is that it is more of the same Big Government
>that you claim is oppressive. That runs both ways. In California,
>homosexuals largely control the Legislature through their dominance
>of the Democratic Party. If you don't want the government oppressing
>you, don't oppress others.
Homosexuals largely control the Legislature through their dominance of
the Democratic Party? Are you nuts?!? If they did, why hasn't a
statute like AB-101 been passed already? Why wasn't it able to
survive a gubernatorial veto? Why was Lyndon LaRouche been able to
get his homophobic agenda on the ballot for so many years? Why did
one of the more recent attempts at AIDS tracing state that if the
physician *thought* the patient was HIV+ or likely to become HIV+ (not
actually HIV+...just *suspected* of being HIV+), then the patient was
to be reported to the State Health Board?
># Tell me, Clayton, if you had a child who was gay, what would you do?
>Find a psychologist to help him.
There. You've done something to me. You've attempted to make
homosexuality a "disease"...something to be "cured." You've attempted
to make me into a second-class citizen by making me "deranged."
Clayton, just what "help" do I or any other gay person need? Just
what is so "wrong" about not being straight? Even the APA has removed
it from the list of mental disorders...in 1973.
># You don't threaten me? What was that little crack about "little
># system of coercion and threats for those who refuse to do as you
># demand"?
>How does it threaten you to point out that you threaten me? Do
>you have some problem understanding simple English?
No, but you apparently do. You're saying that my demand to be treated
equally with the rest of the nation is unreasonable. Your statement
implies that you are opposed to me acquiring the same rights as the
rest of the public.
Sounds like a threat, to me.
># #Looking for aggressive, violent people? Go to any Democratic Party
># #activity. They live for a system of violence and theft.
># And Republicans don't? What world do you live in, Clayton?
>This is typical of liberals -- they live in a black and white
>world, where every choice is binary -- they are unable to imagine
>that expressing disapproval of the Democrats doesn't imply
>approval of the Republicans.
Clayton, sweetie, honey, baby, pussycat*, I'm not a Democrat. I don't
like the Democrats. I don't like the Republicans, either. I don't
like the Libertarians. I have no political party because none of them
stand for everything that I want.
* "The Meek Shall Inherit" from _Little Shop of Horrors._
--
Brian Evans |If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would
Jasjeet S. Sekhon
I am strait. So I cannot even pretend to understand what it must
feel like being a homosexual in our society; but I do know one
thing: the attitudes towards human beings who happen to be
homosexual that are displayed here in talk.politics.theory (by
people like Clayton who would send his hypothetical homosexual son
to a psychologist presumably to be "cured"?!?) and the like
attitudes that are displayed elsewhere on the network make me
ashamed of being a member of the human race.
-Jas Sekhon
Political Science Hons
The University of British Columbia
sek...@unixg.ubc.ca
"Life is like a bathroom: shit happens."
-Jas Sekhon
"The unexamined life is not worth living."
-Socrates
Lawrence C. Foard
># had, you would know that I am against Affirmative Action.
>
>You mean you don't support laws that require employers to hire
>homosexuals?
Quite the opposite I am very opposed to AA, I would rather be able to hire the
best people, AA would force me to hire under qualified white straight men in
place of better qualified minorities :-)
>So you admit that I haven't forced you to do anything. I've said
>things you don't want to hear -- and you DEMAND that I stop doing
>that. Funny, but if the situation were reversed -- if I DEMANDED
>that homosexuals stop offending straights -- it would be recognized
>as a call for censorship.
Have I ever asked for your removal from the net? Disagreeing with you does not
constitute censorship, the first admendment protects your right to post
garbage and also protects my right to disagree.
>They are. They are spending enormous sums of money on research and
>direct assistance, and you LIE by saying that the government
>"*refuses* to do anything about it".
Searching for a cure is only half the battle, education is what's lacking,
show me a TV PSA that says something rather than just giving a phone #. If
society is to screwed up to discuss safer sex on TV there is something
seriously wrong.
># Tell me, Clayton, if you had a child who was gay, what would you do?
>
>Find a psychologist to help him.
Won't you be surprised when the psychologist makes the appointment for you
instead? Orientation can't be changed, attitudes toward it can.
riv...@vxd.mdcbbs.com
Both of these declaritives are assumptions. Orientation is not always
immutable; some people are just confused and change their orientation back
and forth. Some people's attitudes will NEVER change. They would rather
fight than switch; that's one lesson history shows us. Making the above
statement as an absolute translates as,"We don't have to change, YOU do!".
That is rather arrogant, don't you think?
You can be whatever orientation you are. Most people will accept you,
and that's good. But, there will be people who do not accept you, and you have
no right to demand that they do. Legislating their acceptance does not
work. In fact, legislating morality has always been counter productive. It
forces feigned complience without addressng the inner decision on which
morality depends. Sending them to the thought police, um, psychologists
is hardly any better.
You have a right to be who you are. You do NOT have the right to be liked by
everyone on the planet on your own terms. There is a certain social
advantage in working to be popular within the society, and to get along
with your fellow human, instead of just demanding that you be
admitted/promoted/rewarded/laid on a numerically predictable basis. The former
breeds ambition and the desire to excel. The latter drowns all personal
initiative and individuality in a sea of mandatory sameness, and allows its
practitioners to believe that they are all equally good, because they are all
equally non-unique.
The price of being different and unique is that someone, somewhere, may not
be comfortable with that fact, especially those factions that see being
different and unique as a threat to their view of society. If you have the
courage to be who and what you are, I salute you. But I will not help you
coerce the rest of the world into accepting you, because NOT accepting you
is part of what makes someone else what THEY are.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
| Michael Rivero riv...@mdcbbs.com Homo Cyberneticus-Computational Man |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Back from the high seas. Got the wind in my teeth, and salt water in |
| my blood. But the doctor says a week at this workstation will cure me.|
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Clayton Cramer
> cra...@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <#2zf...@lynx.unm.edu>, bev...@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
# ## #(though of course, they have different phrases to describe adults
# ## #going after eight year olds), perhaps the perception wouldn't exist.
# ##
# ## Clayton, if you were to take your head out of your fucking ass for
# ## *ONCE,* you would find that NAMBLA is generally scorned by the "gay
# ## community" (whatever that is).
#
# #You wouldn't know it from reading soc.motss, where voiced support for
# #NAMBLA definitely exceeds opposition.
#
# I could've sworn I just read (a few articles previous) Cramer attacking
# the validity of the Kinsey report because the respondents were self-selected;
# now it seems he doesn't mind self-selection if the results are what he wants.
#
# Oh well, so much for consistency.
#
# ---
# Merlyn LeRoy
I keep getting told that soc.motss is unrepresentative of the
gay population in the U.S. I sure hope it is. But for every
response from homosexuals that said, "NAMBLA is not typical
or supported," I've received at least two responses that defended
NAMBLA, with great vigor.
Clayton Cramer
> In article <90...@optilink.UUCP> cra...@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <#2zf...@lynx.unm.edu>, bev...@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
# ## as far as reality goes, I am weary of trying to convince you otherwise.
#
# #What's off base? You claim you are worried about the government
# #taking away your rights -- and so demand more of it.
#
# What "more" government? The government doesn't "supervise" the NEA.
# It only funds it. The people who make NEA decisions are artists, not
# government people.
"It only funds it." That's not more government? When you are taxed
to pay for something that you object to, you are being forced to
do something. The government has become bigger. Is that clear?
What if you were forced to fund the Coalition for Traditional Values?
Would that make you upset?
# ## Come on, Clayton, you can say it: NAMBLA...the North American Man-Boy
# ## Love Association.
#
# ## Clayton, if you were to take your head out of your fucking ass for
# ## *ONCE,* you would find that NAMBLA is generally scorned by the "gay
# ## community" (whatever that is).
#
# #You wouldn't know it from reading soc.motss, where voiced support for
# #NAMBLA definitely exceeds opposition.
#
# And what are these arguments, Clayton? That people who consent to a
# certain activity shouldn't be persected? The attitude on soc.motss is
# that if the people involved want it, what's wrong with it? Nobody on
# that group or "supports" NAMBLA is saying that all boys want sex with
# older men or want sex. Nobody is consenting to the rape of anybody.
# They're saying that if the boy wants it and if the man wants it, who
# are we to say they shouldn't do it?
Because of the damage that results from being molested. (Not just
homosexual molestation, either -- heterosexual molestation produces
a lot of damaged kids too).
# ## Gays support the molestation of children? Just where on earth did you
# ## find that tidbit of information?
#
# #Soc.motss.
#
# If I recall the arguments correctly, you didn't get this from
# soc.motss but from your own mind on what you *wish* they would have
# said. What is so special about the age of 21? 18? 16? Just when does
# someone gain the ability to make decisions for himself and why does it
# come at a certain age? That is what they are arguing. They don't
# want anybody raped, but they are extending the concept of the right to
# control one's own body to everybody...in other words, just because
# someone is a child does not mean that his Constitutional rights are
# null and void.
Fine. Go tell that to some of the victims of molestation. Were
they FORCED? In some cases, yes. In some cases, they were maniuplated
into doing things that they either didn't want to do, or failed to
understand the significance of.
# ## *I* control the government? I am *forcing* you to hire people based
# ## on their sexual orientation? Where the hell have I said such a thing?
# ## You haven't read a single word I've said, have you, Clayton. If you
# ## had, you would know that I am against Affirmative Action.
#
# #You mean you don't support laws that require employers to hire
# #homosexuals?
#
# No, I don't, Clayton. I never have and have never implied such. I am
# against discrimination, yes, but I am also against "preferences." In
# fact, I don't like anti-discrimination statutes that list categories
# of "protected classes." I would much rather they list what criteria
# *are* allowable. For example, the only criterion for housing should
# be the ability to pay the rent. The only criterion for employment
# would be specific qualifications required for the job (to be listed by
# the employer).
So if an employer doesn't want to hire people that engage in cross-
burnings in their off hours, they should be required to hire such
people.
# ## Why support art? Because art is part of the "general welfare" which
# ## our government is supposed to promote. Art makes people think.
# ## Science only goes so far...where Science quits, Art starts.
#
# #I'm sure that you could find a majority of Americans willing to make
# #the same argument for government subsidies to religion. But most
# #intelligent people recognize such an argument as nonsense.
#
# The government already subsidizes religion by not collecting taxes.
# Too, such subsidization is against the First Amendment.
There is a fine difference between a subsidy and a tax exemption,
and I wouldn't argue this point very strongly. However, churches
are exempted because of being non-profit organizations engaged in
charitable work. The same provisions apply to a lot of other
organizations. It would be a violation of the First Amendment to
treat churches "special" with respect to tax law.
If the NEA were treated the same as a church -- not subject to
taxation, with contributions treated as charitable contributions --
I would be completely happy. But the NEA isn't treated that way.
It's given money directly from my taxes.
# ## You've done nothing to me? What was that little crack about "forcing
# ## you to hire someone on the basis of his sexuality"? What was that
# ## little crack about "gays supporting the molestation of children"?
#
# ## You cannot make disparaging remarks about gays without personally
# ## insulting *ME,* Clayton. I don't expect you to like gay sex. I don't
# ## even expect you to like me. However, I *demand* that you give me the
# ## respect you would any other human being.
#
# #So you admit that I haven't forced you to do anything. I've said
# #things you don't want to hear -- and you DEMAND that I stop doing
# #that. Funny, but if the situation were reversed -- if I DEMANDED
# #that homosexuals stop offending straights -- it would be recognized
# #as a call for censorship.
#
# That isn't what I said and you know it, Clayton. Now, off the top of
# my head, I can't say that you, personally, have done anything to me.
# However, I don't know all of what you've done. Your inability to
# recognise established studies makes me feel that you have actively
# opposed civil rights for homosexuals.
So this is the reason that I should be shut up -- because I differ
with you politically. You really ARE a liberal!
# No, I'm not asking that I never be offended. I'm asking that I be
# allowed to live my life as I see fit without you sticking your ugly
# face in it. I demand that you treat me with the same respect that you
# would give any other human. Thus, if you would allow a man and a
# woman to marry, then I demand that you allow two men to marry. If you
# would allow a straight person to obtain housing anywhere he was able
# to afford, then I demand that you allow a gay person to do the same.
#
# I don't ask you to like me. I ask you to allow me to do the same
# things that you would do or allow others to do.
#
# Is that so difficult to understand?
Then I demand the same from you -- the freedom to make my own decisions
without the government FORCING me to smile stupidly and say, "I approve
of what you do." And that's what the gay community is having state
governments do -- force me to pretend I approve.
# ## No, Clayton. I don't suppose that gay suidice might have anything to
# ## do with being shild sexual abuse victims. And I say this because
# ## people who molest children are more likely to be heterosexual than
# ## homosexual (over 90% of abusers identify as heterosexual.)
#
# #I keep asking for sources for your claim -- and I don't get them.
# #Whether someone claims to be straight or gay isn't very meaningful,
# #if the molestor goes after a child of the same sex.
#
# You haven't asked for this source. And off the top of my head, I
# can't give you journal and issue.
I haven't asked you. But when I ask, I get arm-waving (the great
USENET tradition!)
# Clayton, homosexuality is not defined by behaviour but by feelings.
# Pederasty is unrelated to gender sexuality. About two-thirds of the
# men in this country will have a homosexual experience to orgasm, but I
# wouldn't call all such men gay or even bisexual. I know many men who
# have had girlfriends, even married women, but weren't straight or
# bisexual but gay. I know men who have had sex with men but weren't
# gay or bisexual but straight.
#
# A _20/20_ report about men who acquire HIV and pass it to their wives
# went into sex in public toilets. They stated that about 80% of the
# men who have sex in public toilets are straight. Yeah, they're having
# sex with men, but that doesn't make them gay.
It certainly makes them bisexuals. You may find it convenient to
redefine "homosexual" and "bisexual" in ways that suit your
political agenda, but that doesn't make it accurate.
# Boys are more likely to be the victims of physical sexual abuse
# (actual sexual contact and not just peeping...and I *do* have
# references for this). This is mainly because little boys are easier
# to get at than little girls.
I would like to see such references. I've seen the figures 1 in 3
girls and 1 in 7 boys thrown about, but actual studies?
# ## "Me and my group"? Just what the fuck is that supposed to mean?
# ## People are dying and the government *refuses* to do anything about it
# ## because of the type of people and you don't see anything *wrong* with
# ## that? I'm not asking the government to hospitalise people. I'm
# ## asking them to actually make an attempt at finding a cure.
#
# #They are. They are spending enormous sums of money on research and
# #direct assistance, and you LIE by saying that the government
# #"*refuses* to do anything about it".
#
# They're doing something *now,* yes. What about in 1981 when it first
# came about? Why did Reagon not even *mention* AIDS until 1986? Why
In 1981, there wasn't even any certainty about what was going on.
Articles were JUST beginning to appear about "gay cancer" in a few
magazines, and were almost immediately discounted as homophobic
propaganda. Reagan was never noted for his awareness.
# was acquiring funding next to impossible until "nice" people started
# getting it? Why was nothing done until "nice" people who got it
# through transfusions started becoming a major risk?
Because it took a long time to understand what was going on. Even
as late as 1983, the extent to which homosexuals had spread the
disease was unclear.
# And just what *is* being done? The price of AZT was exorbitant until
# ACT-UP scared the company (I forget which it is) by their protests.
# The FDA refuses to allow experimental treatments to be used on humans
# that are dying. And when you *do* get into an experimental treatment,
# you have to be next to death to get in instead of in the early stages
# of the infection.
That's Big Government for you. You'll notice that what has FINALLY
changed a longstanding policy of the FDA is that AIDS deserves
"special treatment" -- unlike other diseases.
# ## And what did they say about Rock and Liberace, huh? Any sentiments
# ## about how horrible it was that they had AIDS? how terrible it was that
# ## someone like them should be infected with HIV? any sympathy at *all*
# ## for them and their families?
#
# ## Nope. They had sexual relations with men and they deserved it.
#
# #What are you talking about? There was constant whining about how
# #sad it was that Rock Hudson died of AIDS. (It was sad -- but don't
# #give this nonsense about lack of sympathy).
#
# You don't give the entire story. Yeah, people were sad that he had
# died of AIDS, but only because they thought he was straight. They
# were also whining that he turned out not to be straight. One of their
# heroes was dead...but he wasn't what they thought he was.
Not my recollection.
# ## What system of coercion and threats? Just what is so unreasonable
# ## about demanding to be treated like a human being?
#
# #What's unreasonable is that it is more of the same Big Government
# #that you claim is oppressive. That runs both ways. In California,
# #homosexuals largely control the Legislature through their dominance
# #of the Democratic Party. If you don't want the government oppressing
# #you, don't oppress others.
#
# Homosexuals largely control the Legislature through their dominance of
# the Democratic Party? Are you nuts?!? If they did, why hasn't a
# statute like AB-101 been passed already? Why wasn't it able to
It did pass the legislature.
# survive a gubernatorial veto? Why was Lyndon LaRouche been able to
The Democrats have only a simple majority of the legislature.
# get his homophobic agenda on the ballot for so many years? Why did
Because he goes straight to the people -- the Legislature has no
authority to stop an initiative from going on the ballot.
# one of the more recent attempts at AIDS tracing state that if the
# physician *thought* the patient was HIV+ or likely to become HIV+ (not
# actually HIV+...just *suspected* of being HIV+), then the patient was
# to be reported to the State Health Board?
This is news to me. What are the rules used for tracing other
STDs?
# ## Tell me, Clayton, if you had a child who was gay, what would you do?
#
# #Find a psychologist to help him.
#
# There. You've done something to me. You've attempted to make
# homosexuality a "disease"...something to be "cured." You've attempted
# to make me into a second-class citizen by making me "deranged."
That's largely the result of reading soc.motss.
# Clayton, just what "help" do I or any other gay person need? Just
# what is so "wrong" about not being straight? Even the APA has removed
# it from the list of mental disorders...in 1973.
So were they right to have put it on the list? My understanding is
that it was put on the list originally without much thought, and
removed in the same way.
# ## You don't threaten me? What was that little crack about "little
# ## system of coercion and threats for those who refuse to do as you
# ## demand"?
#
# #How does it threaten you to point out that you threaten me? Do
# #you have some problem understanding simple English?
#
# No, but you apparently do. You're saying that my demand to be treated
# equally with the rest of the nation is unreasonable. Your statement
# implies that you are opposed to me acquiring the same rights as the
# rest of the public.
#
# Sounds like a threat, to me.
No, my demand is that you stop trying to use the government to
force me to accept homosexuality. You leave the government out of
this, and I will. But the gay community can't resist the urge to
use the government to impose its will on me. They learned nothing
from the sodomy laws.
# Brian Evans |If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would
Mathemagician
*PLEASE* make an attempt at comprehension. This is very simple stuff.
In article <90...@optilink.UUCP> cra...@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <=84f...@lynx.unm.edu>, bev...@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
># What "more" government? The government doesn't "supervise" the NEA.
># It only funds it. The people who make NEA decisions are artists, not
># government people.
>"It only funds it." That's not more government? When you are taxed
>to pay for something that you object to, you are being forced to
>do something. The government has become bigger. Is that clear?
>What if you were forced to fund the Coalition for Traditional Values?
>Would that make you upset?
The Traditional Values Coalition makes political statements and tries
to lobby the government.
Yes, I would be upset if I had to fund the Traditional Values
Coalition...and specifically for that reason. The NEA supports things
that I don't like, but I will continue to support the NEA.
># And what are these arguments, Clayton? That people who consent to a
># certain activity shouldn't be persected? The attitude on soc.motss is
># that if the people involved want it, what's wrong with it? Nobody on
># that group or "supports" NAMBLA is saying that all boys want sex with
># older men or want sex. Nobody is consenting to the rape of anybody.
># They're saying that if the boy wants it and if the man wants it, who
># are we to say they shouldn't do it?
>Because of the damage that results from being molested. (Not just
>homosexual molestation, either -- heterosexual molestation produces
>a lot of damaged kids too).
Clayton, I want you to stop for just a second and read my paragraph.
I can wait....
Done? Good. Now, recall the sentence: "Nobody is consenting to the
rape of anybody."
Does that sound like I am supporting molestation? Where have I *ever*
said that molestation is a good thing? When a person is molested,
then he has been subjected to something without his consent. He has
been raped.
And *NOTHING* I have said has supported rape or molestation. Just
what is it about the word "consent" that you don't understand?
I am quite aware that many people are unable to give consent about
things such as sexual activity.
The thing is, I don't see the difference between a 32-year-old who
can't or won't give consent and a 12-year-old who can't or won't.
Just what is it about the age of 21/18/16/14 that makes someone
capable of giving consent.
If there is no consent, then that person has been RAPED and there is
no way that you can get me to support a person who rapes someone.
Personally, I don't know of any 12-year-olds who are capable of giving
consent to sexual activity.
That doesn't mean that there aren't any.
># If I recall the arguments correctly, you didn't get this from
># soc.motss but from your own mind on what you *wish* they would have
># said. What is so special about the age of 21? 18? 16? Just when does
># someone gain the ability to make decisions for himself and why does it
># come at a certain age? That is what they are arguing. They don't
># want anybody raped, but they are extending the concept of the right to
># control one's own body to everybody...in other words, just because
># someone is a child does not mean that his Constitutional rights are
># null and void.
>Fine. Go tell that to some of the victims of molestation. Were
>they FORCED? In some cases, yes. In some cases, they were maniuplated
>into doing things that they either didn't want to do, or failed to
>understand the significance of.
Clayton, I'm going to ask you to stop a moment and reread my paragraph.
I can wait....
Done? Good. Recall the sentence, "They don't want anybody raped."
When a person is forced or manipulated into having sex, then they have
been raped. Just what is so special about a 12-year-old getting raped
as compared to a 32-year-old? Being raped is a horrible thing and I
don't wish it upon anybody.
Forced or coerced sexual activity is *never* acceptable. I was very
clear about that, Clayton, and if you had been reading with any form
of comprehension, it would have been crystal clear to you.
You will never, *EVER,* find me claiming that molestation, rape, or
coercion is allowable. You will *ALWAYS* find me saying that if there
is no consent given or capable of being given, then molestation or
rape has occurred.
Just what is it about the word "consent" that you don't understand?
># No, I don't, Clayton. I never have and have never implied such. I am
># against discrimination, yes, but I am also against "preferences." In
># fact, I don't like anti-discrimination statutes that list categories
># of "protected classes." I would much rather they list what criteria
># *are* allowable. For example, the only criterion for housing should
># be the ability to pay the rent. The only criterion for employment
># would be specific qualifications required for the job (to be listed by
># the employer).
>So if an employer doesn't want to hire people that engage in cross-
>burnings in their off hours, they should be required to hire such
>people.
Depends on how they do a cross-burning. If they do it upon someone
else's lawn, then they are guilty of a crime.
If they do it on their own property or at a rally, then, yes, if the
person is the most qualified to do the job, they must be hired.
It is not a crime to be a racist, nor should it be. It is acting upon
such feelings that is a crime...and only certain actions, at that.
># The government already subsidizes religion by not collecting taxes.
># Too, such subsidization is against the First Amendment.
>There is a fine difference between a subsidy and a tax exemption,
>and I wouldn't argue this point very strongly. However, churches
>are exempted because of being non-profit organizations engaged in
>charitable work. The same provisions apply to a lot of other
>organizations. It would be a violation of the First Amendment to
>treat churches "special" with respect to tax law.
Churches *are* treated specially with respect to tax law since they
perform political lobbying. A political group is not allowed to be
tax exempt, and yet the Roman Catholic Church is tax exempt.
># That isn't what I said and you know it, Clayton. Now, off the top of
># my head, I can't say that you, personally, have done anything to me.
># However, I don't know all of what you've done. Your inability to
># recognise established studies makes me feel that you have actively
># opposed civil rights for homosexuals.
>So this is the reason that I should be shut up -- because I differ
>with you politically. You really ARE a liberal!
No...it's because I hadn't gotten to a later part of your post. I
knew it was there, but I was going to wait until I got to it before I
responded to it. I had certain suspicions because of certain actions
and wanted to find out more before passing final judgement.
># I don't ask you to like me. I ask you to allow me to do the same
># things that you would do or allow others to do.
># Is that so difficult to understand?
>Then I demand the same from you -- the freedom to make my own decisions
>without the government FORCING me to smile stupidly and say, "I approve
>of what you do." And that's what the gay community is having state
>governments do -- force me to pretend I approve.
No, I am not forcing you to pretend that you approve. If you don't
like homosexuality...that's fine...don't practise homosexual activity.
Don't assume that the rest of us feel the same way that you do.
I'm going to say it again because you apparently didn't see it the
first time:
I don't ask you to like me. I ask you to allow me to do the same
things that you would do or allow others to do.
># You haven't asked for this source. And off the top of my head, I
># can't give you journal and issue.
>I haven't asked you. But when I ask, I get arm-waving (the great
>USENET tradition!)
Sorry, Clayton, but I am not in the habit of writing down every single
source of information that I come across. That's what libraries are
for. I'm sorry you don't believe me.
># A _20/20_ report about men who acquire HIV and pass it to their wives
># went into sex in public toilets. They stated that about 80% of the
># men who have sex in public toilets are straight. Yeah, they're having
># sex with men, but that doesn't make them gay.
>It certainly makes them bisexuals. You may find it convenient to
>redefine "homosexual" and "bisexual" in ways that suit your
>political agenda, but that doesn't make it accurate.
Clayton, I am not the one who makes these decisions. I am not the one
who defined what "homosexual," "bisexual," and "heterosexual" mean.
It was the psychiatrists and psychologists who did that.
A homosexual is a person who has romantic attractions to members of
the same gender.
A heterosexual is a person who has romantic attractions to members of
the opposite gender.
A bisexual is a person who has romantic attractions to members of both
genders.
Now, often one can determine such attractions by the sexual behaviours
of the person, but this is not accurate. The men who have sex in
public toilets are engaging in bisexual behaviour, yes (in that they
are having sex with members of both genders), but that doesn't make
them bisexual. These men feel no romantic or affectional attractions
to the men with whom they have sex. You don't have to pay for sex in
a public toilet. In fact, many of them feel that by having some guy
suck their cocks, they are proving their heterosexuality.
># Boys are more likely to be the victims of physical sexual abuse
># (actual sexual contact and not just peeping...and I *do* have
># references for this). This is mainly because little boys are easier
># to get at than little girls.
>I would like to see such references. I've seen the figures 1 in 3
>girls and 1 in 7 boys thrown about, but actual studies?
Fine, Clayton. I'll send you my sources. It's rather long and has
been posted before. The statistics you mention are for all instances
of sexual abuse, not actual physical contact.
># They're doing something *now,* yes. What about in 1981 when it first
># came about? Why did Reagon not even *mention* AIDS until 1986? Why
>In 1981, there wasn't even any certainty about what was going on.
>Articles were JUST beginning to appear about "gay cancer" in a few
>magazines, and were almost immediately discounted as homophobic
>propaganda. Reagan was never noted for his awareness.
The ones that were discounted as homophobic propaganda were rightly
discounted since they claimed that the very *act* of anal sex was
causing the Kaposi's sarcoma even though heterosexuals engage in anal
intercourse almost as often as homosexual men (which they would have
known had they done the obvious research of checking out instances of
anal sex).
># was acquiring funding next to impossible until "nice" people started
># getting it? Why was nothing done until "nice" people who got it
># through transfusions started becoming a major risk?
>Because it took a long time to understand what was going on. Even
>as late as 1983, the extent to which homosexuals had spread the
>disease was unclear.
That doesn't answer the question. Given that gay men were dying, why
was funding so impossible to acquire until hemophiliacs started dying?
># And just what *is* being done? The price of AZT was exorbitant until
># ACT-UP scared the company (I forget which it is) by their protests.
># The FDA refuses to allow experimental treatments to be used on humans
># that are dying. And when you *do* get into an experimental treatment,
># you have to be next to death to get in instead of in the early stages
># of the infection.
>That's Big Government for you. You'll notice that what has FINALLY
>changed a longstanding policy of the FDA is that AIDS deserves
>"special treatment" -- unlike other diseases.
You will find that the arguments used to pressure the FDA are not AIDS
specific. That is, the argument is this:
If a person has a terminal illness, why should he be prevented from
receiving experimental treatment because it hasn't been tested? The
person is going to die so why deny him the possibility of getting a
cure or at least living long enough until a cure is found because
something isn't "tested"?
Having gone through my mother's death from breast cancer, I have heard
the same arguments from cancer patients.
And no, the argument hasn't worked, really. The policy has only
slightly changed. I believe the 7 years before approval has been
reduced to 4 years.
Most AIDS patients die within 2 years of onset.
># Homosexuals largely control the Legislature through their dominance of
># the Democratic Party? Are you nuts?!? If they did, why hasn't a
># statute like AB-101 been passed already? Why wasn't it able to
>It did pass the legislature.
That doesn't answer the question. Why hasn't a statute like AB-101
been passed already if we have so much control?
># survive a gubernatorial veto? Why was Lyndon LaRouche been able to
>The Democrats have only a simple majority of the legislature.
So, in other words, we don't have a control over the Legislature.
># get his homophobic agenda on the ballot for so many years? Why did
>Because he goes straight to the people -- the Legislature has no
>authority to stop an initiative from going on the ballot.
The wonders of Prop 13. But, you didn't understand the question.
Where is this control of the Legislature if these propositions keep
getting onto the ballot? These people are voting for, as you imply,
gay-controlled Democrats yet put the initiatives like LaRouche's on
the ballot.
># one of the more recent attempts at AIDS tracing state that if the
># physician *thought* the patient was HIV+ or likely to become HIV+ (not
># actually HIV+...just *suspected* of being HIV+), then the patient was
># to be reported to the State Health Board?
>This is news to me. What are the rules used for tracing other STDs?
If I am not mistaken, I believe that cases of syphillus and similar
diseases are reported when the diagnosis is made, and the name of the
person infected isn't given.
># There. You've done something to me. You've attempted to make
># homosexuality a "disease"...something to be "cured." You've attempted
># to make me into a second-class citizen by making me "deranged."
>That's largely the result of reading soc.motss.
And not understanding a word of what went on....
># Clayton, just what "help" do I or any other gay person need? Just
># what is so "wrong" about not being straight? Even the APA has removed
># it from the list of mental disorders...in 1973.
>So were they right to have put it on the list? My understanding is
>that it was put on the list originally without much thought, and
>removed in the same way.
And not much thought went into that statement. It was not removed
casually from the DSM. There are still a large number of
psychologists and psychiatrists who feel that it is a mental disorder.
There are even groups such as Exodus who feel that they can "cure"
homosexuality (even though the founders of Exodus, who claimed to be
reformed homosexuals, realised that they were living a lie, quit the
group, and fell in love with each other).
No, they weren't right to put it on the list. Again, I ask, just what
"help" do I or any other gay person need?
># No, but you apparently do. You're saying that my demand to be treated
># equally with the rest of the nation is unreasonable. Your statement
># implies that you are opposed to me acquiring the same rights as the
># rest of the public.
># Sounds like a threat, to me.
>No, my demand is that you stop trying to use the government to
>force me to accept homosexuality. You leave the government out of
>this, and I will. But the gay community can't resist the urge to
>use the government to impose its will on me. They learned nothing
>from the sodomy laws.
I have *NEVER* asked you or forced you to accept homosexuality. All
throughout this entire exchange between us, I have said that I don't
ask you to like homosexuality or desire to engage in it.
I have demanded that you allow others to do what you would do or allow
others to do.
If you don't like homosexuality, fine. Don't practise homosexual acts.
Don't assume that your views hold for everyone.
You have yet to come up with a single reason *why* there should be
sodomy laws in the first place. It appears that the Bill of Rights
and the Constitution are lost upon you.
--
Brian Evans | "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bev...@carina.unm.edu | I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
John Strybosch
I was going to write this long message about how unbelievable Clayton
is to anyone who approaches lesbian/gay issues without malice or
prejudice.
I decided that most of the readers here don't need a lecture on truth
since they have brains and they can think and learn facts for themselves.
Certainly anyone wanting to know truth would look for a less biased
source of information and would use compassion and care for people rather
than a pointing finger.
Clayton has been nattering on about sexual orientation for a long time.
No matter how people try to explain the truth, he refuses to try to
learn. So why waste my breath.
Thanks
JJ Strybosch
Gee it feels good to step back and see that most people aren't dumb.
Eric S. Raymond
> I was going to write this long message about how unbelievable Clayton
> is to anyone who approaches lesbian/gay issues without malice or
> prejudice.
Not so fast, there. Clayton Cramer is shrill, rude, offensive, and wrong
about some important facts. He does seem to have a pretty homophobic
emotional fix about sexual orientation.
However, I think he is entirely in the right when he attacks the gay community
for being unwilling to concede others the same freedom it claims for gays. If
it's bad for the government to intervene in support of `straight' values, it is
equally wrong for the government to require straights to hire or associate
with gays against their wishes.
My point in posting this is that it's possible to have a less simpleminded
reaction to Cramer than either "he's telling the whole truth" or "ohgod he's a
homophobe idiot". OK, so he tends to go irrational on a few things. Still,
he'd make a better neighbor for anyone, straight or gay, than most supposedly
`enlightened' straights do --- because as long as you aren't trying to
muscle him into living differently than he wants, he'll leave you alone.
--
Eric S. Raymond = er...@snark.thyrsus.com (mad mastermind of TMN-Netnews)
Merlyn LeRoy
>In article <1991Dec28....@digibd.com>, mer...@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
># I could've sworn I just read (a few articles previous) Cramer attacking
># the validity of the Kinsey report because the respondents were self-selected;
># now it seems he doesn't mind self-selection if the results are what he wants.
>...But for every
>response from homosexuals that said, "NAMBLA is not typical
>or supported," I've received at least two responses that defended
>NAMBLA, with great vigor.
Like I said, Cramer dislikes self-selected surveys when they produce
results he doesn't like, and cites them when they produce results he wants.
He didn't even bother to refute this.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Clayton Cramer
# Clayton, you haven't read a word I've said. I'm going to try again.
# *PLEASE* make an attempt at comprehension. This is very simple stuff.
#
# In article <90...@optilink.UUCP# cra...@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #In article <=84f...@lynx.unm.edu#, bev...@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
# ## What "more" government? The government doesn't "supervise" the NEA.
# ## It only funds it. The people who make NEA decisions are artists, not
# ## government people.
#
# #"It only funds it." That's not more government? When you are taxed
# #to pay for something that you object to, you are being forced to
# #do something. The government has become bigger. Is that clear?
# #What if you were forced to fund the Coalition for Traditional Values?
# #Would that make you upset?
#
# The Traditional Values Coalition makes political statements and tries
# to lobby the government.
#
# Yes, I would be upset if I had to fund the Traditional Values
# Coalition...and specifically for that reason. The NEA supports things
# that I don't like, but I will continue to support the NEA.
And you will force me to do the same. But you'll notice I'm not
trying to force you to support organizations that I support. The
NEA's "art" sure seems to include a lot of stuff with a political
message. The distinction between that "art" and political lobbying
is primarily in how immediately it is relevant to the current issues
of the day.
# ## And what are these arguments, Clayton? That people who consent to a
# ## certain activity shouldn't be persected? The attitude on soc.motss is
# ## that if the people involved want it, what's wrong with it? Nobody on
# ## that group or "supports" NAMBLA is saying that all boys want sex with
# ## older men or want sex. Nobody is consenting to the rape of anybody.
# ## They're saying that if the boy wants it and if the man wants it, who
# ## are we to say they shouldn't do it?
#
# #Because of the damage that results from being molested. (Not just
# #homosexual molestation, either -- heterosexual molestation produces
# #a lot of damaged kids too).
#
# Clayton, I want you to stop for just a second and read my paragraph.
#
# I can wait....
#
# Done? Good. Now, recall the sentence: "Nobody is consenting to the
# rape of anybody."
#
# Does that sound like I am supporting molestation? Where have I *ever*
# said that molestation is a good thing? When a person is molested,
# then he has been subjected to something without his consent. He has
# been raped.
WRONG. Molestation victims are frequently unable to say no, because of
fear, intimidation, etc. The law makes no requirement of force or
violence for a crime to constitute molestation.
# And *NOTHING* I have said has supported rape or molestation. Just
# what is it about the word "consent" that you don't understand?
Within the legal definition of molestation, yes you have. An adult who
has sex with a 12 year old has molested the 12 year old. If in doubt,
I suggest that you go talk to someone at the district attorney's
office.
# I am quite aware that many people are unable to give consent about
# things such as sexual activity.
#
# The thing is, I don't see the difference between a 32-year-old who
# can't or won't give consent and a 12-year-old who can't or won't.
You should spend more time around 12 and 32 year olds, then. We
make a presumption that 32 year olds can make their own decisions.
The damage caused to a 12 year old by adults using them for sex is
considerably more severe, and considerably more certain, than a 32
year old.
# Just what is it about the age of 21/18/16/14 that makes someone
# capable of giving consent.
Presumptions of maturity.
# If there is no consent, then that person has been RAPED and there is
# no way that you can get me to support a person who rapes someone.
#
# Personally, I don't know of any 12-year-olds who are capable of giving
# consent to sexual activity.
#
# That doesn't mean that there aren't any.
So why do you support an organization that seeks removal of age of
consent laws?
# Brian Evans | "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
Clayton Cramer
> *PLEASE* make an attempt at comprehension. This is very simple stuff.
>
> In article <90...@optilink.UUCP> cra...@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <=84f...@lynx.unm.edu>, bev...@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
# ## against discrimination, yes, but I am also against "preferences." In
# ## fact, I don't like anti-discrimination statutes that list categories
# ## of "protected classes." I would much rather they list what criteria
# ## *are* allowable. For example, the only criterion for housing should
# ## be the ability to pay the rent. The only criterion for employment
# ## would be specific qualifications required for the job (to be listed by
# ## the employer).
#
# #So if an employer doesn't want to hire people that engage in cross-
# #burnings in their off hours, they should be required to hire such
# #people.
#
# Depends on how they do a cross-burning. If they do it upon someone
# else's lawn, then they are guilty of a crime.
#
# If they do it on their own property or at a rally, then, yes, if the
# person is the most qualified to do the job, they must be hired.
#
# It is not a crime to be a racist, nor should it be. It is acting upon
# such feelings that is a crime...and only certain actions, at that.
Well, I guess that describes the difference between us. I figure that
a racist who can't find employment will learn from the experience.
You figure that he deserves the government's assistance in forcing
people to hire him, no matter how distasteful his outside actions
are.
# ## The government already subsidizes religion by not collecting taxes.
# ## Too, such subsidization is against the First Amendment.
#
# #There is a fine difference between a subsidy and a tax exemption,
# #and I wouldn't argue this point very strongly. However, churches
# #are exempted because of being non-profit organizations engaged in
# #charitable work. The same provisions apply to a lot of other
# #organizations. It would be a violation of the First Amendment to
# #treat churches "special" with respect to tax law.
#
# Churches *are* treated specially with respect to tax law since they
# perform political lobbying. A political group is not allowed to be
# tax exempt, and yet the Roman Catholic Church is tax exempt.
Not QUITE true. As long as you are trying to mold public opinion,
without directly lobbying Congress, a lobbying group can maintain
tax-exempt status. (This is why you will sometimes find literature
from organizations that denies any intent to lobby Congress). Churches
that are primarily political lobbying organizations are in grave
danger of losing their status.
# ## I don't ask you to like me. I ask you to allow me to do the same
# ## things that you would do or allow others to do.
#
# ## Is that so difficult to understand?
#
# #Then I demand the same from you -- the freedom to make my own decisions
# #without the government FORCING me to smile stupidly and say, "I approve
# #of what you do." And that's what the gay community is having state
# #governments do -- force me to pretend I approve.
#
# No, I am not forcing you to pretend that you approve. If you don't
# like homosexuality...that's fine...don't practise homosexual activity.
#
# Don't assume that the rest of us feel the same way that you do.
#
# I'm going to say it again because you apparently didn't see it the
# first time:
#
# I don't ask you to like me. I ask you to allow me to do the same
# things that you would do or allow others to do.
No, you didn't ASK me. You demanded that the government force me to
smile and say, "It's OK." If you ASKED me, instead of bringing in your
thugs, you might have gotten a big further.
# ## A _20/20_ report about men who acquire HIV and pass it to their wives
# ## went into sex in public toilets. They stated that about 80% of the
# ## men who have sex in public toilets are straight. Yeah, they're having
# ## sex with men, but that doesn't make them gay.
#
# #It certainly makes them bisexuals. You may find it convenient to
# #redefine "homosexual" and "bisexual" in ways that suit your
# #political agenda, but that doesn't make it accurate.
#
# Clayton, I am not the one who makes these decisions. I am not the one
# who defined what "homosexual," "bisexual," and "heterosexual" mean.
#
# It was the psychiatrists and psychologists who did that.
#
# A homosexual is a person who has romantic attractions to members of
# the same gender.
#
# A heterosexual is a person who has romantic attractions to members of
# the opposite gender.
#
# A bisexual is a person who has romantic attractions to members of both
# genders.
#
# Now, often one can determine such attractions by the sexual behaviours
# of the person, but this is not accurate. The men who have sex in
# public toilets are engaging in bisexual behaviour, yes (in that they
# are having sex with members of both genders), but that doesn't make
# them bisexual. These men feel no romantic or affectional attractions
It DOESN'T? What next? People that only have sex with members of the
same sex aren't homosexuals?
# to the men with whom they have sex. You don't have to pay for sex in
# a public toilet. In fact, many of them feel that by having some guy
# suck their cocks, they are proving their heterosexuality.
Yes, I'm sure you can find people that believe that beating people
up is a way to prove their pacifism as well.
# ## Boys are more likely to be the victims of physical sexual abuse
# ## (actual sexual contact and not just peeping...and I *do* have
# ## references for this). This is mainly because little boys are easier
# ## to get at than little girls.
#
# #I would like to see such references. I've seen the figures 1 in 3
# #girls and 1 in 7 boys thrown about, but actual studies?
#
# Fine, Clayton. I'll send you my sources. It's rather long and has
# been posted before. The statistics you mention are for all instances
# of sexual abuse, not actual physical contact.
I've received them. They show that 21% of child molesters are
exclusively homosexuals -- or somewhere between 2x and 5x the
proportions of homosexuals in the population. The material you
sent also lumps heterosexuals and bisexuals together in the remaining
79%. What was the percentage of bisexuals? Or is that too embarrassing?
# ## was acquiring funding next to impossible until "nice" people started
# ## getting it? Why was nothing done until "nice" people who got it
# ## through transfusions started becoming a major risk?
#
# #Because it took a long time to understand what was going on. Even
# #as late as 1983, the extent to which homosexuals had spread the
# #disease was unclear.
#
# That doesn't answer the question. Given that gay men were dying, why
# was funding so impossible to acquire until hemophiliacs started dying?
Because the government works exceedingly slowly. Or have you forgotten
that Congress has to get involved?
# ## And just what *is* being done? The price of AZT was exorbitant until
# ## ACT-UP scared the company (I forget which it is) by their protests.
# ## The FDA refuses to allow experimental treatments to be used on humans
# ## that are dying. And when you *do* get into an experimental treatment,
# ## you have to be next to death to get in instead of in the early stages
# ## of the infection.
#
# #That's Big Government for you. You'll notice that what has FINALLY
# #changed a longstanding policy of the FDA is that AIDS deserves
# #"special treatment" -- unlike other diseases.
#
# You will find that the arguments used to pressure the FDA are not AIDS
# specific. That is, the argument is this:
#
# If a person has a terminal illness, why should he be prevented from
# receiving experimental treatment because it hasn't been tested? The
# person is going to die so why deny him the possibility of getting a
# cure or at least living long enough until a cure is found because
# something isn't "tested"?
#
# Having gone through my mother's death from breast cancer, I have heard
# the same arguments from cancer patients.
#
# And no, the argument hasn't worked, really. The policy has only
# slightly changed. I believe the 7 years before approval has been
# reduced to 4 years.
I never said that the arguments were AIDS-specific -- libertarians
have been making the same arguments for a decade or more, about less
Politically Correct diseases -- and gotten nowhere. Homosexuals just
have more influence on our government than libertarians.
# ## Homosexuals largely control the Legislature through their dominance of
# ## the Democratic Party? Are you nuts?!? If they did, why hasn't a
# ## statute like AB-101 been passed already? Why wasn't it able to
#
# #It did pass the legislature.
#
# That doesn't answer the question. Why hasn't a statute like AB-101
# been passed already if we have so much control?
#
# ## survive a gubernatorial veto? Why was Lyndon LaRouche been able to
#
# #The Democrats have only a simple majority of the legislature.
#
# So, in other words, we don't have a control over the Legislature.
You have effective control of the Legislature. It's not veto-proof --
but in common political parlance, having a majority of the Legislature
means the same thing.
# ## get his homophobic agenda on the ballot for so many years? Why did
#
# #Because he goes straight to the people -- the Legislature has no
# #authority to stop an initiative from going on the ballot.
#
# The wonders of Prop 13. But, you didn't understand the question.
# Where is this control of the Legislature if these propositions keep
# getting onto the ballot? These people are voting for, as you imply,
# gay-controlled Democrats yet put the initiatives like LaRouche's on
# the ballot.
The same voters overwhelmingly passed an initiative to throw out all
legislators and state-wide officers after a maximum of eight years --
yet re-elected pretty much the whole Legislature. Does this give
you some idea of the influence that money has on buying elections?
# ## one of the more recent attempts at AIDS tracing state that if the
# ## physician *thought* the patient was HIV+ or likely to become HIV+ (not
# ## actually HIV+...just *suspected* of being HIV+), then the patient was
# ## to be reported to the State Health Board?
#
# #This is news to me. What are the rules used for tracing other STDs?
#
# If I am not mistaken, I believe that cases of syphillus and similar
# diseases are reported when the diagnosis is made, and the name of the
# person infected isn't given.
Not my understanding. It was concern about anonymity that caused
Californians for many years to avoid public health facilities --
private doctors were more likely to be "understanding" and not report
them to public health.
# ## There. You've done something to me. You've attempted to make
# ## homosexuality a "disease"...something to be "cured." You've attempted
# ## to make me into a second-class citizen by making me "deranged."
#
# #That's largely the result of reading soc.motss.
#
# And not understanding a word of what went on....
Adults talking about their fantasies of sex with young boys? Adults
talking about their own childhood experiences of being molested?
Adults talking about how 12 year olds are appropriate sexual partners
for adults? Men telling sad tales of being picked up by the police
soliciting sex in public restrooms? What did I misunderstand?
# ## No, but you apparently do. You're saying that my demand to be treated
# ## equally with the rest of the nation is unreasonable. Your statement
# ## implies that you are opposed to me acquiring the same rights as the
# ## rest of the public.
#
# ## Sounds like a threat, to me.
#
# #No, my demand is that you stop trying to use the government to
# #force me to accept homosexuality. You leave the government out of
# #this, and I will. But the gay community can't resist the urge to
# #use the government to impose its will on me. They learned nothing
# #from the sodomy laws.
#
# I have *NEVER* asked you or forced you to accept homosexuality. All
# throughout this entire exchange between us, I have said that I don't
# ask you to like homosexuality or desire to engage in it.
#
# I have demanded that you allow others to do what you would do or allow
# others to do.
Exactly. You insist that the government should tell private employers
and landlords who to rent to, who to hire, etc. I insist that's
none of the government's business. But no, you insist the government
should go stick its nose into private acts between consenting adults.
Hypocrite.
# If you don't like homosexuality, fine. Don't practise homosexual acts.
#
# Don't assume that your views hold for everyone.
#
# You have yet to come up with a single reason *why* there should be
# sodomy laws in the first place. It appears that the Bill of Rights
# and the Constitution are lost upon you.
#
# --
# Brian Evans | "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
Why would I defend sodomy laws? They are a violation of private acts
between consenting adults. That's YOUR approach to government.
ed matz
>From this weekend's USA Today "StatesLine" (Jan 3 page 8a)
>
>WISCONSIN
>Milwaukee --- 300-lb woman who killed her husband when she sat on his
>face during quarrel may have been victim of abuse and might not be
>charged, authoritied said. Charles Walker, 40, and 160 lbs., died
>Tuesday after 11 days in a coma, doctors said.
Let's see, now:
If a man kills a woman, it's because he's naturally more aggressive and
naturally more violent. If a woman kills a man, it's because she was
a victim of abuse.
What's wrong with this picture?
--Ed Matz
Tim Szeliga
>From this weekend's USA Today "StatesLine" (Jan 3 page 8a)
>
>WISCONSIN
>Milwaukee --- 300-lb woman who killed her husband when she sat on his
>face during quarrel may have been victim of abuse and might not be
>charged, authoritied said. Charles Walker, 40, and 160 lbs., died
>Tuesday after 11 days in a coma, doctors said.
>
>wm
Marcy L Updike
> A 300lb woman and a 160lb husband, huh? I guess that this means either
>love really IS blind, or some people aren't as bright as they could be.
>I'd have been gone at 180lbs. Think I'm kidding? Ask my ex.
>
>Jim
Jerk! Someone SHOULD sit on your face! Since when is physical imperfection
the be-all and end-all of love as we (should) know it? Count yourself lucky
that your ex isn't psychotic and vengeful. Superficiality isn't anything to
advertise, bud.
Marce.
Philip LAFORNARA
>In article <z19...@lynx.unm.edu>, bev...@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>> That is, if we can allow two consenting adults to have sex, why can we
>> not allow two consenting people of any age to have sex?
>
>This is usually a sign of a broken premise. What about an adult having
>sex with a one year old? (Don't tell me it can't be done -- I spent
>an unpleasant afternoon talking with a nurse who worked in an abused
>infants ward in Orange County -- six month olds with STDs acquired
>after birth). Isn't that consenting?
>
This is clearly nonconsensual. When it happens, it is rape.
>How about Jeff Dauber's, "I defend pedophiles." How about Anthony
>Berno's:
>
> A BIG difference between a NAMBLA member and a child molester
> is that NAMBLA is encouraging CONSENSUAL relationships between
> men and boys. The difference between this and molestation is the
> same as the difference between "making love" and rape.
>
>These (and a lot more) were posted in soc.motss. I have several
>hundred K of postings and email from homosexuals defending adults
>using children for sex. These are just some of the more concise
>statements.
>
Clayton, did you _read_ that statement? It does not support
"adults using children for sex". It does support two consenting
(emphasis on the word consenting) individuals sharing love in a
physical way.
Do you actually know what the word "consensual" means? You
seem to ignore it as if it were a fnord.
>> the point that a person's Constitutional rights are not null and void
>> simply because the person is a child.
>
>Darn right. That includes the right not to be abused and screwed over
>by a horny adult that refuses to seek psychological help for his problem.
>
Consensual, Clayton. Not abuse.
>> I will, however, support the consensual activities of anybody,
>> regardless of age.
>> Brian Evans | "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
>
>Forgive me if I find your assertion above just a little ingenuous,
>after you tell me about NAMBLA's activities.
>
Was I mistaken, or did Brian specifically state that he did not
support NAMBLA? How is his support for consensual (oops, there's that
word again - maybe you should look it up) activities harmful to
anyone?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara 1 Microsoft Way
phil...@microsoft.com Redmond, WA 98052-6399
Note: Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Today's Wisdom:
He who would walk the road of Wisdom must first
follow the path of the cabbage.
Tim Pierce
>phil...@microsoft.com (Philip LAFORNARA) writes:
>> Do you actually know what the word "consensual" means? You
>>seem to ignore it as if it were a fnord.
>
>two cents - anyone who believes that sexual relations between an adult and
>a minor can be termed consensual is SERIOUSLY brain damaged. Chidren are
^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
>NOT adults and are not emotionally equipped to make adult level decisions.
Children != minors. Legal adulthood begins at 18 (unless, of course,
you want to get into that old devil stuff, drink). If you mean to
tell me that most 17-year-olds are emotionally incapable of sexual
relations, I laugh at you. Even so, some of the 12- and 13-year-olds
I have known have been more emotionally ready to deal with sex than
some of the 25-year-olds I have known. The point is that arbitrarily
placing the age at which you become emotionally ready for sex at 18 --
or, indeed, at any predetermined age -- is silly.
--
____ Tim Pierce / Why do so many people fight education, when
\ / pie...@husc.harvard.edu / it has been proven time and time again that
\/ (aka twpi...@amherst.edu) / it is ignorance which is the killer?
-- Erik Jones
David C. Kovar
>Children != minors. Legal adulthood begins at 18 (unless, of course,
>you want to get into that old devil stuff, drink). If you mean to
>tell me that most 17-year-olds are emotionally incapable of sexual
>relations, I laugh at you. Even so, some of the 12- and 13-year-olds
>I have known have been more emotionally ready to deal with sex than
>some of the 25-year-olds I have known. The point is that arbitrarily
>placing the age at which you become emotionally ready for sex at 18 --
>or, indeed, at any predetermined age -- is silly.
It's not at all silly if it protects those minors who are incapable,
emotionally, of making rational decisions about sexual relations. You, and
others, have pointed out that there are some minors who are capable of
that decision. The *majority* of the minors, though, are *not* capable
of making that decision. The good of the many outweighs the "needs" of
the few. These few minors do not "need" to have sex with adults, and the
adults certainly don't "need" to have sex with these particular minors.
--
-David C. Kovar
Consultant Internet: ko...@eclectic.com
Eclectic Associates AppleLink: ECLECTIC
Ma Bell: 617-643-3373 MacNET: DKovar
"It is easier to get forgiveness than permission."
"As I walk through this wicked world,
Searchin' for light in this darkness of insanity."
"Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty."
Tim W Smith
> > sexual relations by taking it to its logical conclusion.
> >
> > That is, if we can allow two consenting adults to have sex, why can we
> > not allow two consenting people of any age to have sex?
>
> This is usually a sign of a broken premise. What about an adult having
> sex with a one year old? (Don't tell me it can't be done -- I spent
Note that the poster that you are responding too was talking about two
***CONSENTING*** people having sex. Your example has nothing to do with
this, since a one year old would not be able to give consent.
Tim Smith
Rolfe G. Petschek
>>phil...@microsoft.com (Philip LAFORNARA) writes:
>> I almost hate to get involved in this discussion, but here's my
>>two cents - anyone who believes that sexual relations between an adult and
>>a minor can be termed consensual is SERIOUSLY brain damaged. Chidren are
> ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
>>NOT adults and are not emotionally equipped to make adult level decisions.
>
>Children != minors. Legal adulthood begins at 18 (unless, of course,
>you want to get into that old devil stuff, drink). If you mean to
>tell me that most 17-year-olds are emotionally incapable of sexual
>relations, I laugh at you. Even so, some of the 12- and 13-year-olds
>I have known have been more emotionally ready to deal with sex than
>some of the 25-year-olds I have known. The point is that arbitrarily
>placing the age at which you become emotionally ready for sex at 18 --
>or, indeed, at any predetermined age -- is silly.
Ho, hum. Well there have to be codes with clear definitions and legal
formulae. In Ohio (and most states)
a) it is illegal to have sex with someone who is too young but the
extent to which this is illegal depends on the age of both partners
and
b) it is illegal to have sex with someone who can not really understand
the nature of the sex act (or control his/her behavior) and again the
extent of illegality depends on the reason for and nature of impairment.
In Ohio:
partner <13 - very serious 1st degree felony
parter <16, more than 4 years different - minor 3rd degree felony
partner <16, less than 4 years different - misdemeanor, unless you are
<18.
Finally if partner is "impaired" by your action which partner can not
easily prevent 1st degree felony, but if simply impair only 3rd degree
felony.
Well, now that we know what is involved write a reasonably precise
definition of when/how these laws ought to be changed. I would be glad
to supply persons interested in so doing with all relevant text of the
Ohio Revised Code. I would find lack of laws disturbing and invite
persons not willing to suggest detailed, workable codes to cease to complain.
--
Rolfe G. Petschek Pets...@cwru.bitnet
Associate Professor of Physics r...@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University (216)368-4035
Cleveland Oh 44106-7079
Steve in the Secret Labs
>phil...@microsoft.com (Philip LAFORNARA) writes:
>
>
>>"adults using children for sex". It does support two consenting
>>(emphasis on the word consenting) individuals sharing love in a
>>physical way.
>
>> Do you actually know what the word "consensual" means? You
>>seem to ignore it as if it were a fnord.
>
>two cents - anyone who believes that sexual relations between an adult and
>a minor can be termed consensual is SERIOUSLY brain damaged. Chidren are
>'consensual' as well ? Sexual relations between an adult and a child are
>wrong, and will leave emotional scars on the child.
>
>jar...@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu
>Jim Robertson
The big social question here is: "When and under what conditions are
people capable of giving their consent?" This is a really good question,
it is hard to argue that say seven year olds are capable of giving their
consent. It is also hard to imagine that anything other than an overblown
sense of parental protectiveness, can be used to claim that someone's
16 or 17 year old son or daughter is "really a child" and has to be kept
close watch over. There is some base for this legally as in most states
the age of consent is 16. There are some incredibly immature individuals
that this would not apply to, but it would be rare. My sort of perverse
method of establishing age of consent is to find the lowest age anyone
has been prosecuted as an adult and set the age of consent there. That
I suspect would make it about 14. If someone is going to perform legal
magic and say: "Well you really acted as an adult, you knew or should
have known what you were doing..." then it seems only fair to let people
decide at least what they do with their bodies themselves. Just as an
issue of human freedom.
The same with the concept of consent in other areas. It is easy to say
someone is compromised if someone has fed them 500ml of 100 proof vodka,
but it is much more difficult if someone has had one beer. All of this
is what makes certain areas such emotional mine fields that people have
to navigate around in. In some cases it does seem that people want really
stringent definitions of things enforced not out of care for other humans,
but because they want to promote a secret anti-sex agenda. And of course
the further it is from the most vanilla heterosexuality, it is odd that
the clamour does up, as if mere distance from "vanillaness" somehow caused
the behavoir to become bad in magic prima facie manner.
Now there is the reasonable desire of parents to protect their children
from some of the more dangerous things in the world, but one sometimes
call a spade a spade, and not a club or a diamond, and say, that some
protectiveness emenates not from a desire to protect but from a desire
to control. Many people come to conclusions that are different than those
of their parents. This is not to say that parents don't often have
valuable things to teach their children. In addition, though it is hard
not to see that sometimes what is happening is grasping after the straws
of control as they slip away. a
I remember tales of one set of parents who came home to find their
17 year old daughter on top of her boyfriend "having too much fun"
and they were a little dismayed, but crept quietly down into the den away
from the action. When asked later by fellow parents why they didn't
stop the events they replied: "What were we going to say? What are
you letting our daughter do to you??!"
Thanks and Be Seeing You,
Sends Steve
reply/flame/make extrravagent offers to: chr...@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us
Stephen C. Miller
>
>two cents - anyone who believes that sexual relations between an adult and
>a minor can be termed consensual is SERIOUSLY brain damaged. Chidren are
>NOT adults and are not emotionally equipped to make adult level decisions.
>You may as well deny the existence of date rape - or are all of those
>'consensual' as well ? Sexual relations between an adult and a child are
>wrong, and will leave emotional scars on the child.
>
I think I agree with this broad statement, for our culture anyway.
It should be pointed out, however, that activities we define as sex are
routine parts of the parenting process in New Guinea. There young boys
have to perform fellatio on older men in order to swallow as much semen
as they can. If they don't get enough semen, it is believed, they will
never grow up into men. This stuff is VERY well documented - these
tribesmen certainly grow up into reasonable members of their own
societies. But of course in these situations there's not much question
of exploitation or secrecy in the sense that we associate pederasty with
dirty, secret vice. The fundamental difference may be one of a practice
that's generally socially acceptable, vs. one that's pretty much
anti-social. I think sex with children in this society probably falls
under the anti-social heading. I personally have trouble imagining
wanting to be in a sexual situation in which power is so obviously
unequal.
--
--------------------
=Steve Miller stcm...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
@IUBACS (.BITNET)
"Hey - Free Dummy" @ucs.indiana.edu
Herschel Browne
and have refrained from saying anything largely because Clayton
Cramer is so patently not worth responding to. Now he posts
his latest gem with an actually libellous header suggesting
that Brian Evans (Hi Brian! Love ya!) supports "using" children
for sex. Obviously Brian has never said anything that a reasonable
person could construe in that way (which is to say, that this
Cramer excrescence is not a reasonable person, I guess). I'm about
fed up with this.
The bee in Cramer's not-very-flattering bonnet (he needs a little
fashion triage, I think) is NAMBLA, and the failure of the
denizens of soc.motss to rise as a body to condemn that organization.
Any suggestion that all gay people are not actually involved in
selling 6-year-old boys into sexual slavery is met with the
comment "go read soc.motss". For those who have never read soc.motss,
most of whom may have no desire to read soc.motss, this may have
some unjustified force. Perhaps it may be imagined, from Cramer's
mantra, that there actually is a consensus among the people who
hang out on soc.motss that pre-schoolers are up for grabs, and that
the only area of concern is who gets first pick.
Well, it ain't so.
Let me pose a few questions. Is it a reasonable position, reasonably
held by reasonable people, that NAMBLA is squarely within its rights
in our putatively democratic society in lobbying for a reconsideration
of the age-of-consent laws? That there is nothing automatically
tainted about an organization that argues, on a heap of historical
and anthropological evidence, that the age/sex attitudes embodied
in our criminal codes are based on no eternal principles? That
sexual relationships between men and boys--again, relying on a
heap of historical and anthropogical evidence--are not necessarily
bad, and have been considered a positive good in some societies
and indeed even today are institutionalized in some traditional
societies? Is it reasonable or is it not that an organization that
raises such issues, and does so largely in a serious manner,
should be accorded the same dignity as other organizations raising
other issues in a similar manner? Finally, is it reasonable to
insist, as this Cramer fellow does, that everyone who posts to
soc.motss must condemn such an organization or be presumptively
a child-rapist or an apologist for child-rape?
At this point, Cramer pokes his head through the door and
repeats his mantra: "Go read soc.motss". Thank you, Cramer;
your suggestion is so helpful.
At the risk of being seen as devoted to the obvious, let me just
make an observation or two. Cramer's intense concern with the
welfare of children and their vulnerability to the child-rapists
infesting soc.motss would perhaps be more convincing if there
were any evidence that this concern had any manifestation
other than as a stick to beat gay people with. Where is his
outraged solicitude at the spectacle of children starving in
the third world? Why don't we hear his cries of grief and pity
as the children of our inner cities are brutalized by poverty,
illiteracy, and casual violence? Where are his tears for the
young, helpless victims of disease and war, who suffer so
disproportionately compared to the mature and strong in the
midst of the world's strife?
No, no, Cramer insists, "go read soc.motss" -- THERE is the
real danger to children! Not even NAMBLA itself, but the failure
to be shocked by NAMBLA: THAT is the great threat to the children
of the world!
Now, does that seem to be a reasonable position? Or does it seem
to be a convenient scourge with which to punish gay people, picked
up by someone determined to punish gay people with whatever scourge
he can lay his sweaty hand upon?
Two other things, from Cramer's last post:
In article <90...@optilink.UUCP>, cra...@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) says:
>
>And you will force me to do the same. But you'll notice I'm not
>trying to force you to support organizations that I support.
The Pentagon, the Justice Department.....I'd much rather not support
them. May I bow out please?
>Within the legal definition of molestation, yes you have. An adult who
>has sex with a 12 year old has molested the 12 year old. If in doubt,
>I suggest that you go talk to someone at the district attorney's
>office.
There you go, asking me to support something I'd rather not support.
Your position isn't very consistent, is it? Tell you what, you don't
have to support the NEA if I don't have to support the district
attorney. Deal?
H.
Vladimir Kuznetsov
>That is, if we can allow two consenting adults to have sex, why can we
>not allow two consenting people of any age to have sex?
>
>live) that automatically makes you capable of giving your consent?
How do you classify homosexual contact of mature adult with
5-year old? What exactly does the consent of 5-year old mean?
I'm curious to hear an answer.
>
>I will, however, support the consensual activities of anybody,
>regardless of age.
>
please, give me an answer!
vlad
--
Vladimir Kuznetsov (408)252-5455
Natural Intelligence Consulting vl...@netcom.COM
73437,33...@compuserve.com
Vladimir Kuznetsov
I strongly object to personal attacks on people. If you have
something to say about subject of discussion just say it.
By the way put me in one bunch with Clayton. He seems quite
logical and tolerant to me. Not like you or Bryan.
cupid's six-guns
>
> A 300lb woman and a 160lb husband, huh? I guess that this means either
>love really IS blind, or some people aren't as bright as they could be.
>I'd have been gone at 180lbs. Think I'm kidding? Ask my ex.
well, you probably can't help being an insensitive
asshole. did you offer her any moral support or
encouragement to lose weight, or did you just tell
her you'd leave if she didn't? and why was her
size so important to you? did you not love her
for anything but her figure, or were you afraid your
friends would laugh at you for having a fat wife,
or were you just too insecure to deal with not
being bigger, heavier, and more physically imposing?
you sound like a real dickhead. if my husband put
a weight limit on his love for me I'D leave HIM.
m
--
"Turn back the sheets, boys, I'm headin'
for the arms of Morpheus." -- Mae West uunet!alembic!popeet!gypsy
Jeff Dauber
>I've received them. They show that 21% of child molesters are
>exclusively homosexuals -- or somewhere between 2x and 5x the
>proportions of homosexuals in the population. The material you
>sent also lumps heterosexuals and bisexuals together in the remaining
>79%. What was the percentage of bisexuals? Or is that too embarrassing?
Where do you get these statistics, clayton darling?
I want to see who got them and what scientific methods were used.
If you cannot supply this information, I will be forced to believe that
you made them up.
Jeff
-FWA
Robert Klahn
>I've received them. They show that 21% of child molesters are
>exclusively homosexuals -- or somewhere between 2x and 5x the
>proportions of homosexuals in the population. The material you
>sent also lumps heterosexuals and bisexuals together in the remaining
>79%. What was the percentage of bisexuals? Or is that too embarrassing?
What!?!?! I have never seen an acurate read on the percentage of
homosexuals/bisexuals/hertosexuals in the population.
This is clearly picking the data to meet the conclusion.
bob
Robert Hartman
>In article <90...@optilink.UUCP> cra...@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
[discussion of merits of minors inability to give legal consent omitted]
Listen guys, not everyone is interested in this, and many people
find it upsetting. Can you please keep it to just one or two
newsgroups, or thrash it out in e-mail? Thanks.
Followups to /dev/null.
-r
William Turnbow
In a broader sense, why isn't there a NA Man-Girl Assoc.?
A Woman-Boy or Woman-Girl Assoc?
Are their special arguments the NAMBLA members use to claim
large age differences are permissible only between 'men' and 'boys'?
Actually, depending on what age we are talking about, I think
some of the statutory rape laws are pretty dumb. Claiming that being
18 is old enough to decide to have a relation with a 21 year old or
24 year old boyfriend is obviously ridiculous. I know 1 girl who is
19 now, who is dating a 39 year old man. They have been together for
almost 4 years. It takes no rocket scientist to figure they were
engaged in illegal sex for almost 3 years with the knowledge of her
mother. This guy did not introduce her to sex either.
There are seemingly obvious points where humans are not capable
of a relationship, however, given the fact that marriagable age used
to be around the point of menses (or puberty) for a *long* time, should
this change because of an arbitrary moral condition imposed by
society?
-wat-
Hagar the Horrible
Lawrence C. Foard
>I've received them. They show that 21% of child molesters are
>exclusively homosexuals -- or somewhere between 2x and 5x the
>proportions of homosexuals in the population. The material you
>sent also lumps heterosexuals and bisexuals together in the remaining
>79%. What was the percentage of bisexuals? Or is that too embarrassing?
Lets see a few more breakdowns:
1) How many of these excusively homosexual child molestors have any interest
in adults?
2) How many of these people are open gay or bisexual. repressed sexuality
(gay or straight) can often take ugly forms, look at Jimmy Swaggart for
example.
I like men who are men, I like warm hard bodies with muscle and hair,
the idea of sex with children doesn't excite me at all. Children are
generally feminine in appearance and are not going to interest people who
like adult men.
In another letter you say that you have 100's of K of mail supporting NAMBLA.
Your mailbox has two catagories, 1) people who think only married people over
18 that have sex in the missionary position are ok. 2) people who support
NAMBLA, any mail that doesn't fit catagory 1 you file in #2.
NAMBLA supports complete removal of age of consent laws, very few people
support this. But you automatically classify any discussion of changing the
age of consent as agreement with NAMBLA, I personally believe the age of
consent is several years to high, but I absolutely don't think people should
be allowed to have sex with 1 year olds. You also take any posting of
childhood fantasies as supporting NAMBLA, maybe you never had any fantasies
before 18, but I think you will find most people do...
Narayana Behera
>phil...@microsoft.com (Philip LAFORNARA) writes:
>
>> >In article <z19...@lynx.unm.edu>, bev...@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) wri
>> >> not allow two consenting people of any age to have sex?
>> >
>> >This is usually a sign of a broken premise. What about an adult having
>> >sex with a one year old? (Don't tell me it can't be done -- I spent
>> >an unpleasant afternoon talking with a nurse who worked in an abused
>> >infants ward in Orange County -- six month olds with STDs acquired
>> >after birth). Isn't that consenting?
>> >
>>
>> This is clearly nonconsensual. When it happens, it is rape.
>>
>
>
> I've heard a lot about pedophilism. Loompanics carries a number of
>books on the subject <along with lots of other strange things, but
>anyway..>... there's a lot of contraversy involved, most of it around the
>words "consensual sex".
>
> What I want to know is, how does a young <perhaps pre-adolescent>
>person <of any stripe> "consent" to something he has no knowledge of? And
>if the answer to that is that the child must be educated, how do you
>educate the child in a purely objective fashion?
>
> I'm not damning anyone's torpedos <you will forgive the pun, won't
>you?> but I would like to know how consent is handled in this case.
WHy is this even being discussed here? Ithought I'd find discussions about
women's issues on this group. What a silly assumption.
Murray Wall
some time and have found that when I am in bed with her, I become the 30 second
lover. I don't know who. I just can't hold on. Can anyone give me advice to
stop my 30 seconds of love and make it a good hour of fucking. THanks
Tall One
> In article <90...@optilink.UUCP> cra...@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>gay population in the U.S. I sure hope it is. But for every
>>response from homosexuals that said, "NAMBLA is not typical
>>or supported," I've received at least two responses that defended
>>NAMBLA, with great vigor.
>
> The problem is, Clayton, that you don't understand the defense.
>
> Those who defend NAMBLA are defending the *concept* of consensual
> sexual relations by taking it to its logical conclusion.
>
> not allow two consenting people of any age to have sex?
...
> Nobody who defends NAMBLA is defending molestation and I challenge you
> to find any posting that even *implies* such a stance. They defend
> the point that a person's Constitutional rights are not null and void
> simply because the person is a child.
>
> agree with what NAMBLA officially stands for but are against NAMBLA,
> itself, because they feel that NAMBLA doesn't follow that stance. I
> have heard many stories from people who have dealt with NAMBLA and
> found pamphlets explaining how to seduce young boys. I find that
> horrible and will never support it and because of such instances, I
> will never support NAMBLA.
>
> I will, however, support the consensual activities of anybody,
> regardless of age.
If anyone's interested, I--upon seeing Cramer's post about NAMBLA--asked
soc.motss about Cramer's viewpoint, asking the question:
"Do you support NAMBLA?"
Out of 50 responses, the message was pretty clear: A little less than half did
not support NAMBLA *in any way*; about half supported NAMBLA's right as an
organization and the rights of the individuals in that organization, their
approval subject to NAMBLA not advocating or having members involved in
molesting unwilling kids (i.e., NAMBLA not breaking laws and/or not forcing
unwilling young adults into man-boy relationships); and one or two supported
NAMBLA unconditionally.
More importantly, it was brought to my attention that a simple "yes-no"
question about NAMBLA support was hopeless in getting any sort of reasonable
idea about how people think about NAMBLA. I suspect that Cramer used the
"yes-no" question format to arrive at his conclusion, because a "yes" answer is
any answer of "I support NAMBLA" for *whatever reason*. Anyhow, the point is
that anyone with a reasonably open mind will support NAMBLA's right to exist
even though that person may not totally agree with the principles of NAMBLA.
As many responses put it, "If there isn't anything going on that involves
breaking laws and/or unconsenting partners, who really gives a fuck?"
> --
> Brian Evans | "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
> bev...@carina.unm.edu | I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
--
===========================================================================
"Things are more like they are now than they've ever been before..."
-- Zippy the Pinhead
--------------\------------------------------------------------------------
Pro-Choice \ Leo Mauler, aka Marvin, aka The Tall One
Pro-Freedom \ kud...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Anti-Censorship \ "Soon To Be Home Of The Magical Changing Sig!"
------------------\--------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: KU and I agree on one thing: we disagree with everything else.
===========================================================================
The Master
>I believe children must be protected. One of the things we
>must protect children from is pedophiles
(part deleted)
>I have an 11 year old
>son and were he to be attacked (and any sexual advances on my
>son would be considered an attack by me) I would meet that
>attack with immediate deadly force. This is a point that
>other parents will understand.
Amen! I too have an eleven year old (a daughter), and believe me, if
any slimy pervert child molester attempted to abuse her, the cops
would be the least of his problems. Do you understand, I don't care
about your rights, I don't care about the law, I don't care about
prison, abuse my child and I will do everything within my power to
hunt you down and kill you. If you are lucky, and the law finds you
first, I will be waiting at the prison gate when you get out. Only
a parent can understand how important a child is.
"From the bright lights of Memphis, to the Commodore hotel"
I wish everyone well
Jeff Enderwick
Try to remember what dogshit smells like. Then try to stay hard.
jeff
Hillel Gazit
> Amen! I too have an eleven year old (a daughter), and believe me, if
>any slimy pervert child molester attempted to abuse her, the cops
>would be the least of his problems. Do you understand, I don't care
>about your rights, I don't care about the law, I don't care about
Will you do the same to a woman who will sleep with an
eleven years old son?
Just wondering...
Mike Berger
>Do you know why most states raised their drinking ages? The
>reason given in NY, NJ, and CONN was the inordinately high
>number of traffic deaths due to drinking and driving in the
>under 21 age group. Raise the drinking age because they must
>be protected.
*----
A higher drinking age protects "children" from themselves, not from
others. Your analogy makes no sense at all. And in this case, the
same higher drinking age protects ADULTS as well. 18, 19, and 20
year olds cannot legally drink.
>Children can be easily manipulated, and those who engage in
>such manipulation are beneath contempt. I have an 11 year old
>son and were he to be attacked (and any sexual advances on my
>son would be considered an attack by me) I would meet that
>attack with immediate deadly force. This is a point that
>other parents will understand.
*----
So if one of his peers invites him to shoplift, that won't bother
you, but if an adult looks at him funny, you'll shoot to kill?
I think YOU should be locked up. And you have a very egocentric view
of this issue. We are not talking exclusively (or even primarily)
about 11 year olds. Do the same arguments apply to a "child" of
16 or 17?
>As for ignoring statements included in posts, what about the
>statement concerning the defense of pedophiles? What about
>this constant attack on someone who wonders why motss
>discussions don't condemn sexual assault on children, but do
*----
In my observations, sexual assult on children is almost universally
condemned in this file. The issue under discussion is consensual sex.
Perhaps you have a learning disability, but I know this was pointed
out to you several times. Are we in the same discussion?
>I remember when Eton Paatz disappeared in NY, that must have
>been about 15 years ago, as part of the investigation police
>found NAMBLA literature calling for sex with babies, stating
>things like, "a boy is ruined for sex unless get him before
>the age of four" (that age may have been younger, I don't
>really remember that detail now). When I heard this I
>wondered why these people where not simply shot (I was younger
>and more hot headed then).
*----
I don't know how true this is, but it sounds more like an urban
legend. Have you actually SEEN that pamphlet? Does NAMBLA
accept it?
>I've been rambling here.
*----
I'll say. And you've rambled a couple times about how you want to
shoot people. You are a very scary person. I can hardly see how
an 11 year old boy is safe in your presence or under your influence.
>Children should be protected. They should be protected from
>many things, and among those things are adults who are willing
>to take advantage of that child.
*----
And some people should be protected against others who refuse to
let them think for themselves. I doubt that there are many 17 year
olds that WANT your protection. Especially since it probably involves
a gun.
--
Mike Berger
Department of Statistics, University of Illinois
AT&TNET 217-244-6067
Internet ber...@atropa.stat.uiuc.edu
Mike Berger
>> relations, I laugh at you. Even so, some of the 12- and 13-year-olds
>> I have known have been more emotionally ready to deal with sex than
>> some of the 25-year-olds I have known. The point is that arbitrarily
>> placing the age at which you become emotionally ready for sex at 18 --
>> or, indeed, at any predetermined age -- is silly.
>It is not silly -- it is practical. If psychology ever becomes a real
>science, perhaps it will be possible to test people for readiness for
>various things (sex, alcohol, independence from parents, etc.). In
>such a world, the age of a person would have nothing to do with the
>legal definition of adulthood.
*----
I'm having trouble distinguishing between "practical" and "silly". If
your arbitrary age limits are not based on any objective facts about the
individual in question, that "practical" means "convenient". It's
hardly a compelling reason.
Philip LAFORNARA
>When it comes to homosexuality, I am tolerant. But when a group of
>people try to find legal justification to sexually take advantage of
>young people, I become furious. You sickos need help. Stay within
>your own age group, but do not attept to force your practices upon
>those whose minds are still deciding about their sexuality. Step
>outside yourselves, and take a look at what you are doing.
>
1) Please clarify who the "you" in your post refers to. Many people
have posted on this thread: None of them has claimed to be a
member of NAMBLA.
2) You seem to have read the previous posts in the thread very
selectively. I have yet to see anyone support "sexually taking
advantage" of anyone. I have seen some discussion on whether
the current age of consent laws are reasonable.
3) "Stay within your own age group." Interesting statement. Does
this mean that if I become interested in a person some ten years
my junior that I should never become involved with that person?
How about if I were thirty and the object of my desire twenty?
Still outside my age group?
(Yes, I know I'm nit picking.)
4) Step outside yourself, and take a look at what you are doing. You
are turning what could be a rational discussion between intelligent
people into a rant. Try taking a step back, taking ten deep breaths,
and composing yourself before you start banging on your keyboard
next time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara 1 Microsoft Way
phil...@microsoft.com Redmond, WA 98052-6399
Note: Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Melinda Shore
>4) Step outside yourself, and take a look at what you are doing. You
> are turning what could be a rational discussion between intelligent
> people into a rant.
This is precisely what KKKlayton has been doing lo, these
many months. He's been equating discussion of age of
consent laws and discussion of to what extent young people
can take responsibility for their own sexuality (and when)
with support for child molestation. Furthermore, because
this discussion has taken place in soc.motss, he's been
claiming that gay people are predisposed to be child
molesters. This is neither rational nor intelligent.
The questions remain: To what extent are age of consent
laws arbitrary? To what extent does stigmatization of
childhood sexuality contribute to problems with sexuality
later in life? Does asking these questions means that I'm
a child molester?
--
Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - sh...@tc.cornell.edu
Louis Marco
>>I'd have been gone at 180lbs. Think I'm kidding? Ask my ex.
It depends on the relationship, doesn't it? If a large portion of
their relationship was sexual, and she suddenly became unsexual to him, it
seems sensible to think that he might want to end the marriage.
wr
Louis Marco
> Sexual relations between an adult and a child are wrong, and will leave
>emotional scars on the child.
I lost my virginity to a 24 year old lover when I was 14 (well,
almost 15...). It was a wonderful tender experience and certainly one of the
best things that ever happened to me. The only psychological scar it left
is that whenever I hear something by Pentangle I get all misty-eyed..
Nell, wherever you are, God bless you.
I'd like to see adolescents be given the freedom to choose
their own paths in many ways that are now denied. Certainly they'll try
to anyway... I know I did.
wr
Beverly Huntsberger
>Cramer is so patently not worth responding to. Now he posts
>his latest gem with an actually libellous header suggesting
>that Brian Evans (Hi Brian! Love ya!) supports "using" children
>for sex. Obviously Brian has never said anything that a reasonable
>person could construe in that way (which is to say, that this
>Cramer excrescence is not a reasonable person, I guess). I'm about
>fed up with this.
... ... <deleted 2 pages of noteworthy arguments>
>H.
Just wanted to point out that this is (apparently,
though I don't have one of those sex detection
terminals) a "man" defending a "man".
I thought this sort of thing just didn't happen.
;)
BAH
richard.f.j.soyack
>r...@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack) writes:
>>Do you know why most states raised their drinking ages? The
>>reason given in NY, NJ, and CONN was the inordinately high
>>number of traffic deaths due to drinking and driving in the
>>under 21 age group. Raise the drinking age because they must
>>be protected.
>*----
>A higher drinking age protects "children" from themselves, not from
>others. Your analogy makes no sense at all. And in this case, the
>same higher drinking age protects ADULTS as well. 18, 19, and 20
>year olds cannot legally drink.
I believe that that is what I was saying. We, the state, are
protecting the children from making this mistake. And, in
this case, the state defines that people under the age of 21
are minors and I take prose license to call these minors
children.
>
>>Children can be easily manipulated, and those who engage in
>>such manipulation are beneath contempt. I have an 11 year old
>>son and were he to be attacked (and any sexual advances on my
>>son would be considered an attack by me) I would meet that
>>attack with immediate deadly force. This is a point that
>>other parents will understand.
>*----
>So if one of his peers invites him to shoplift, that won't bother
>you, but if an adult looks at him funny, you'll shoot to kill?
>I think YOU should be locked up. And you have a very egocentric view
>of this issue. We are not talking exclusively (or even primarily)
>about 11 year olds. Do the same arguments apply to a "child" of
>16 or 17?
>
I don't remember saying anything about shoplifting so I'll
assume that for some reason you had the uncontrolled desire to
have a conversation with yourself at the beginning of that
paragraph. I also don't remember saying anything about an
adult who looked at my son funny, I was very specific I said
sexual advances. I am very egocentric when it comes to my children.
I was discussing this very specific case. If you didn't want
to discuss the very specific case I discussed why did you
address me?
>>As for ignoring statements included in posts, what about the
>>statement concerning the defense of pedophiles? What about
>>this constant attack on someone who wonders why motss
>>discussions don't condemn sexual assault on children, but do
>*----
>In my observations, sexual assult on children is almost universally
>condemned in this file. The issue under discussion is consensual sex.
>Perhaps you have a learning disability, but I know this was pointed
>out to you several times. Are we in the same discussion?
>
Actually, this is the first time I've addressed this subject
(I could be wrong, but I don't recall doing this before), and
its absolutely the first time I've read any replies addressed
to myself on this subject. No I don't have any learning diabilities,
but thanks for your concern. And it doesn't appear that we
are in the same discussion. You are talking to some guy
running around with a gun, protecting 17 year olds, I'm
talking about what would happen if someone attacked my son.
>>I remember when Eton Paatz disappeared in NY, that must have
>>been about 15 years ago, as part of the investigation police
>>found NAMBLA literature calling for sex with babies, stating
>>things like, "a boy is ruined for sex unless get him before
>>the age of four" (that age may have been younger, I don't
>>really remember that detail now). When I heard this I
>>wondered why these people where not simply shot (I was younger
>>and more hot headed then).
>*----
>I don't know how true this is, but it sounds more like an urban
>legend. Have you actually SEEN that pamphlet? Does NAMBLA
>accept it?
>
I remember reading about this in the N. Y. Times. I had just
been married and my new wife had a son 7 and a daughter 3 so
we were very interested in the case. Did I see the pamphlet,
no, Does NAMBLA accept it, I haven't the slightest idea.
>>I've been rambling here.
>*----
>I'll say. And you've rambled a couple times about how you want to
>shoot people. You are a very scary person. I can hardly see how
>an 11 year old boy is safe in your presence or under your influence.
>
I never said anything about shooting anyone. The last time I
handled a gun was in the U. S. Navy, in Novermber, 1964. And
while I did say I would use deadly force, I said it once,
because that was all that was necessary. As for being scary,
if that is the opinion held by someone contemplating sexually
abusing my child, then that's okay. And no, I'm not accussing
you of doing that. I'm not accussing anyone of anything.
What I'm doing is predicting my behaviour in a specific set of
circumstances. As to whether its important that you think my son
is safe with me, its not at all important.
>>Children should be protected. They should be protected from
>>many things, and among those things are adults who are willing
>>to take advantage of that child.
>*----
>And some people should be protected against others who refuse to
>let them think for themselves. I doubt that there are many 17 year
>olds that WANT your protection. Especially since it probably involves
>a gun.
I also don't remember offering to protect anyone other than my
child. I'm addressing something very specific. I don't
remember saying anything about not letting people think for
themselves. And you really should speak to a good
psychologist about this gun fixation that you seem to have.
Rich Soyack
Louis Marco
Where the hell was the original to this posted, anyway?
In article <1992Jan5.1...@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> r...@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack) writes:
>I believe children must be protected. One of the things we
Knowledge is the greatest protection you can grant a person.
If I don't want my children to be attacked I'd teach them to protect
themselves, not keep them locked away at home where it's "safe". If I
don't want my children to abuse drugs I'd teach them about drugs, not
force-feed them assinine propaganda and JUST SAY NOW garbage. If I didn't want
my daughter to get pregnant I'd teach her about sex, not pretend that I
found her under a cabbage leaf and tell her than Good Girls Don't.
>son would be considered an attack by me) I would meet that
>attack with immediate deadly force. This is a point that
Why not simply sufficient force to cause the attack to stop?
wr
Louis Marco
I describe explicit sexual acts in the following text, so find your 'n' key
now if that will upset you.
In article <1992Jan6.2...@regina.cs.uregina.ca> wa...@hercules.uregina.ca (Murray Wall) writes:
> [ I come too fast ]
The best way will require some timing and practice, but you can
eventually teach her the trick, too. It goes like this:
Masturbate until you feel that you're almost there. Now, press
hard at the base of your penis, right at the root. You should feel the
impending orgasm stopped - as thought you'd put a cork in it - . If you
don't feel this "stopping" slide your fingers back a little and try there.
After a few times you'll find a spot that you can press on that will stop
you from coming. By holding this spot and pausing in whatever you're doing
that's stimulating you you can not only postpone orgasm but greatly increase
your pleasure when you do. (Although if you try to prolong yourself too long
this way you'll come despite the pressure) When you learn this trick you can
show her the spot and have her do it for you. Interestingly enough, when you
do finish slight-to-moderate pressure here increases the intensity of your
orgasm.
Other good ways of prolonging the experience are long periods of
foreplay centering on her - lots of that stuff women like :-) :-) like
oral sex :-) - which will certainly get you excited but won't give you
the stimulation that would cause you to finish prematurely. Or actually,
it might, oh well... :-) You'll please her more this way than by a 30
second quickie, whatever happens on your end.
wr
Louis Marco
>you sound like a real dickhead. if my husband put
>a weight limit on his love for me I'D leave HIM.
Maybe he still loved her but didn't want to be married to someone
who couldn't meet his basic needs? I'll bet you'd understand "I left my
no-good bum of a husband because he wouldn't get a job and *I* had to go to
work!".
wr
Patrick Willis Pape
How about starting by posting to newsgroups that are relevent.
i.e get talk.politics.mics and talk.politics.theory out of your header
before you post.
Enemy of Totalitarianism
Quit leaving your terminal unattended. That should solve all your
problmes.
Didn't your mother warn you about not using shielded cables? :)
Brett
richard.f.j.soyack
>
> Where the hell was the original to this posted, anyway?
I don't know, I saw it in soc.men and made my original post.
>
>In article <1992Jan5.1...@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> r...@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack) writes:
>>I believe children must be protected. One of the things we
>
> Knowledge is the greatest protection you can grant a person.
>If I don't want my children to be attacked I'd teach them to protect
>themselves, not keep them locked away at home where it's "safe". If I
>don't want my children to abuse drugs I'd teach them about drugs, not
>force-feed them assinine propaganda and JUST SAY NOW garbage. If I didn't want
>my daughter to get pregnant I'd teach her about sex, not pretend that I
>found her under a cabbage leaf and tell her than Good Girls Don't.
>
I'm happy for your children, but what does this response have
to do with what I said. I was predicting my behaviour in a
specific set of circumstances. There seems to be a lot of
projection going on here. The search for the arguement rather
than the search for understanding. My children and I talk,
but that does not mean that if they are attacked I won't
defend them with everything I have.
>>son would be considered an attack by me) I would meet that
>>attack with immediate deadly force. This is a point that
>
> Why not simply sufficient force to cause the attack to stop?
> wr
How much force is that?
Rich Soyack
Ming MAR
>if any slimy pervert child molester attempted to abuse her, the
>lucky, and the law finds you first, I will be waiting at the
>prison gate when you get out.
we have laws -- to prevent acts of revenge. You turn pervert's
legs into hamburger with a shotgun. Pervert's brother cuts your
dick off and chokes you with it. Your wife cuts off pervert's
brother's lips and makes him eat it, ad infinitum.
Second, your daughter knows how you feel, and when she has
consentual sex with anyone, you'll be the last to know.
Sanjuro
>In article <1992Jan5....@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> jar...@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (DE Robertson james an 301-740-9172) writes:
>> Sexual relations between an adult and a child are wrong, and will leave
>>emotional scars on the chi
This is just a test, thanks for the patience.
Tim W Smith
>any slimy pervert child molester attempted to abuse her, the cops
>would be the least of his problems. Do you understand, I don't care
>about your rights, I don't care about the law, I don't care about
>prison, abuse my child and I will do everything within my power to
>hunt you down and kill you. If you are lucky, and the law finds you
>first, I will be waiting at the prison gate when you get out. Only
>a parent can understand how important a child is.
So, if your daughter gets molested, she is going to have to cope with
both the trauma of the molestation *AND* the emotional turmoil of having
a parent go to jail for murder?
Tim Smith
Stephanie Tai
Uh...correct me if I'm mistaken, but wasn't NAMBLA just a joke? I
know that one MIT student went on Donahue saying he was a member, and
a videotape of it is on our MIT hacks archives today. I *think* he
and a group of other people made up the organization, though, just to
see if they could get most of the world to believe it.
-steph
Charles Herrick
(Enemy of Totalitarianism) writes regarding the following plea for help:
> > Can anyone give me advice to
> > stop my 30 seconds of love and make it a good hour of fucking. THanks
> >
>
> Quit leaving your terminal unattended. That should solve all your
> problmes.
>
> Didn't your mother warn you about not using shielded cables? :)
>
Here's what I'd like to say to all the weak-men out there like Brett who sit
hidden behind their puny little terminals and take advantage of another man's
heart-felt and personal request to other men for help, in order to exercise
their (weak-men) weak-spined attempts at cruelty in the form of unrequested
sarcasm, which you know they would never have the courage to do if they were
face-to-face with another man:
eat cyanide, waste-of-flesh.
Chuck Herrick
Charles Herrick
(richard.f.j.soyack) writes:
> In article <22...@unisql.UUCP> wr...@unisql.UUCP (Louis Marco) writes that
> >> I would meet that
> >>attack with immediate deadly force.
>
un-do the horrible harm that has been done to a child who has been molested,
how about putting the child molester in prison for the rest of their life, with
no possibility of parole, even for a first offense.
Wouldn't this qualify to be called a bit more civilized (sufficient force) than
immediately offing the pervert?
Chuck Herrick
David Casseres
Since you see fit to post this to talk.politics.misc, I will give you a t.p.m.
answer:
It is all because of the interference of the Government, at the direction
of liberal statist socialist coercive fascists like Bush and Metzenbaum and
Kennedy and Helms. Join the Anarcho-Libertarian (NOT!)Party and we will
abolish the income tax and allow free market forces to operate as the Great
Investor in the Sky intended, and you will find yourself and your Property
in a permanent state of orgasmic tumescence. Oh, and you'll also be able to
prove beyond a doubt that Noam Chomsky is Pol Pot.
David Casseres
Robert Ashcroft
No, it's not a joke, unfortunately. When I was at Cornell (early 80s)
there was an undergraduate who was, in all seriousness, the national
spokesman for this despicable organization. He was admitted to a
campus living house called Telluride and then promptly expelled when his
status was revealed.
The campus gay/lesbian organization promptly screamed bloody murder, though
Telluride did _not_ expell him for being gay.
He remained unrepentant, apparently, since I had some friends who ended up
living in the same cooperative with this individual later on. The
cooperative tolerated him, but made it very, very, clear that they'd use
his guts for garters if he tried to "implement" his beliefs.
RNA
Sanjuro
cares?) about a man who began receiving ads from companies offering magazines,
books and movies for sale featuring underage participants involved with adults.
He did not respond. Month after month offer after offer came into his mailbox
from one company and another. Finally, out of curiosity (he says) he ordered a
magazine of the type that might be favored by NAMBLA. It arrived, followed
immediately by postal inspectors and Federal marshalls with a warrant for his
arrest. Turns out that every single one of the ads he received was sent by the
U.S. Postal Service as a sting operation. They had gotten his name from some
other publication he favored (a legal one, I believe it was aimed at gays) and
started bombarding him with opportunities. When he protested that he had been
coerced by receiving offers for months, the Postal service said that he could
have asked to have them stopped at any time. He didn't, so he wanted to receive
them. He chose to read the ads, he chose to order the magazines.
He is now challenging them in the supreme court. But, in the meantime he was
fired from his job as an elementary school bus driver.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jath...@ucs.indiana.edu | Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Just "Jim" | Who watches the Guardians?
James Preston
}Children != minors. Legal adulthood begins at 18 (unless, of course,
}you want to get into that old devil stuff, drink). If you mean to
}tell me that most 17-year-olds are emotionally incapable of sexual
}relations, I laugh at you. Even so, some of the 12- and 13-year-olds
}I have known have been more emotionally ready to deal with sex than
}some of the 25-year-olds I have known. The point is that arbitrarily
}placing the age at which you become emotionally ready for sex at 18 --
}or, indeed, at any predetermined age -- is silly.
It's not silly at all; even Clayton agreed that the line is arbitrary.
The point is that you have to put it SOMEplace. I mean, you say that
"most" 17 year olds are emotionally capable of sexual relations. Would
you agree, however, that all one-year olds are NOT so capable? So then
the question becomes where between one and 17 do you draw the line?
These same arguments can be applied to any activity that is legally
regulated; drinking, driving, contract signing, etc. Our society believes
that "children" are not usually capable of adult decisions, and that they
therefore deserve legal protection. It just makes sense to apply this
reasoning to sexual relations as well as to drinking alcohol. It is clearly
logistically impossible to approach such an issue on a case-by-case basis,
so a somewhat arbitrary age is picked. Why should consent to sexual
relations be treated differently than consent to sign a contract?
--James Preston
wc...@vax.clarku.edu
>In article <1992Jan5....@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> jar...@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (DE Robertson james an 301-740-9172) writes:
>> Sexual relations between an adult and a child are wrong, and will leave
>>emotional scars on the child.
>
> I lost my virginity to a 24 year old lover when I was 14 (well,
>almost 15...). It was a wonderful tender experience and certainly one of the
>best things that ever happened to me. The only psychological scar it left
>is that whenever I hear something by Pentangle I get all misty-eyed..
>
Same here, sort of....I was 18 and she was 32, and no, I don't regret it,
except for the fact that I'm now going out with someone else, and I think
EVERYBODY sort of wishes it was the first time with every new
lover/So/whatever. Only thing we both agree on that is too bad is that she
didn't have enough time to teach me all she wanted to. :)
-Grace
[----------------------------------]
[ What you own is your own kingdom,]
[ What you do is your own glory, ]
[ What you love is your own power, ]
[ What you live is your own story. ]
[ -Rush ]
[----------------------------------]
Mathemagician
>In article <1992Jan5.1...@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> r...@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack) writes:
>>son and were he to be attacked (and any sexual advances on my
>>attack with immediate deadly force.
> Amen! I too have an eleven year old (a daughter), and believe me, if
>any slimy pervert child molester attempted to abuse her, the cops
>would be the least of his problems.
What if your son/daughter went out and solicited on their own?
What are you going to do when your children grow up and engage in
sexual activities without your permission?
What happens when they are 17 and the people they are having sex with
are 19? That's statutory rape, in some states.
What about your child's rights?
--
Brian Evans | "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bev...@carina.unm.edu | I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
Tim Pierce
>The questions remain: To what extent are age of consent
>laws arbitrary? To what extent does stigmatization of
>childhood sexuality contribute to problems with sexuality
>later in life? Does asking these questions means that I'm
>a child molester?
Why, of kkkourse it does! After all, the very fact that your
kkkonniving little mind is kkkapable of ASKING these questions
indicates you are trying to press the Secret Soc.Motss Cabal Agenda --
that is, the rape and torture of innocent children across the land.
(It doesn't matter that you're a woman. As a lesbian, we all know you
WANT to be a man, and that's close enough to qualify for NAMBLA.)
[The preceding was only a test. Were this an actual Clayton Cramer
posting, "course," "conniving," and "capable" would have been spelled
kkkorrectly.]
--
____ Tim Pierce / Why do so many people fight education, when
\ / pie...@husc.harvard.edu / it has been proven time and time again that
\/ (aka twpi...@amherst.edu) / it is ignorance which is the killer?
-- Erik Jones
Tim Pierce
If he was telling the truth, it is one of those jokes -- like the
creation of alt.sex.bondage and .bestiality -- that has outlived its
humor and found a sincere population.
richard.f.j.soyack
>In article <24...@equinox.unr.edu> lsm...@unssun.UUCP (The Master) writes:
>>In article <1992Jan5.1...@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> r...@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack) writes:
>>>I have an 11 year old
>>>son and were he to be attacked (and any sexual advances on my
>>>son would be considered an attack by me) I would meet that
>>>attack with immediate deadly force.
>
>> Amen! I too have an eleven year old (a daughter), and believe me, if
>>any slimy pervert child molester attempted to abuse her, the cops
>>would be the least of his problems.
>
>What if your son/daughter went out and solicited on their own?
>
>What are you going to do when your children grow up and engage in
>sexual activities without your permission?
I will do with my 11 year old son what I have done with his
older brother (24) and sister (20), I will treat them like
adults. They (his older brother and sister) don't need my
permission to have sex, why would you think otherwise?
>
>What happens when they are 17 and the people they are having sex with
>are 19? That's statutory rape, in some states.
>
>What about your child's rights?
Which of my child's rights am I violating when I predict my
behavior with respect to the specific incident that I
described? Let me repeat that prediction in a different way
so you, perhaps, can understand. If I were to see
an adult sexually assualting my 11 year old son I would start
punching that adult as hard as I could until something or
someone made me stop. (That, by the way, is deadly force)
I'm not saying this is a plan, I'm saying that I would
completely lose my temper, and that is the most likely result.
Tell me, what is your answer to your own questions? How old
are you? How old are your children? Have you ever been
sexually assualted? Have they ever been sexually assualted?
Have you ever sexually assualted a child?
You see I curious about why when I say if I see my child
attacked, I would immediately respond to that attack, I am
suddenly pictured as a gunmen (not by you) and as someone who
is denying my children their rights. I asked the above
questions to try to understand why you and others are reacting
this way.
Rich Soyack
Mikhail Zeleny
b...@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Beverly Huntsberger) writes:
>In <92006.000...@auvm.american.edu>
>HER...@auvm.american.edu (Herschel Browne) writes:
HB:
>>Cramer is so patently not worth responding to. Now he posts
>>his latest gem with an actually libellous header suggesting
>>that Brian Evans (Hi Brian! Love ya!) supports "using" children
>>for sex. Obviously Brian has never said anything that a reasonable
>>person could construe in that way (which is to say, that this
>>Cramer excrescence is not a reasonable person, I guess). I'm about
>>fed up with this.
>
>... ... <deleted 2 pages of noteworthy arguments>
>>H.
BH:
> Just wanted to point out that this is (apparently,
> though I don't have one of those sex detection
> terminals) a "man" defending a "man".
>
> I thought this sort of thing just didn't happen.
>
> ;)
>BAH
Kindly observe that the above example falls squarely within the provenance
of the HomIntern. RealMen would never do that to each other in public.
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
: Qu'est-ce qui est bien? Qu'est-ce qui est laid? Harvard :
: Qu'est-ce qui est grand, fort, faible... doesn't :
: Connais pas! Connais pas! think :
: so :
: Mikhail Zeleny :
: 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707 :
: Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 (617) 661-8151 :
: email zel...@zariski.harvard.edu or zel...@HUMA1.BITNET :
: :
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
timothy.d.acton
If I read the problem message correctly, Murray just recently experienced
this problem because he has found a totally hot babe that just gets
his primal instincts in an uproar. Don't worry Murray, familiarity
with the babe will probably resolve the problem. (I don't know if that
is a good thing or not! ;-)
We should all be so fortunate. (to find a hot babe that is!)
Reguards,
Tim Acton
Louis Marco
>to do with what I said. I was predicting my behaviour in a
>specific set of circumstances.
My point was that the best way to protect someone is not to kill
all the people that try to harm them, but to teach them to avoid being harmed.
To my way of thinking, the attitude "If someone tried to molest my child I'd
kill her" is as...unevolved... as "There's a young boy. I'll go molest him".
>> Why not simply sufficient force to cause the attack to stop?
>How much force is that?
Ideally, none. On the other hand, if your kid is being attacked by
Arnold Swarzenegger who happens to be wearing Kevlar body-armor and be stoned
on PCP you might need that "deadly force" just to get his attention...
"How much force is that?" Enough force to cause the attack to stop
without causing unnecessary harm to anyone.
I think that the quick and thoughtless use of force, including
physical violence, is a symptom of the lack of training that men have
in being men. His inherited role is warrior and protector and hunter,
but he is taught very limited ways to express these energies. So men
pick fights and see violence as an expression of masculine power. "If
someone did that I'd kick his ass" is an affirmation of their
masculinity. The idea that "I'll just blow him away!" is Manly and Good
doesn't strike me as enlightened thinking.
And I don't think it's a good way to teach children how to live.
"If someone does something you don't like just kill them." Yuck.
james.j.dutton
> My point was that the best way to protect someone is not to kill
>all the people that try to harm them, but to teach them to avoid being harmed.
>To my way of thinking, the attitude "If someone tried to molest my child I'd
>kill her" is as...unevolved... as "There's a young boy. I'll go molest him".
>physical violence, is a symptom of the lack of training that men have
>in being men. His inherited role is warrior and protector and hunter,
>but he is taught very limited ways to express these energies. So men
>pick fights and see violence as an expression of masculine power. "If
>someone did that I'd kick his ass" is an affirmation of their
>masculinity. The idea that "I'll just blow him away!" is Manly and Good
>doesn't strike me as enlightened thinking.
>
> And I don't think it's a good way to teach children how to live.
>"If someone does something you don't like just kill them." Yuck.
SO if someone yanked your kid off the street and raped em your response
would be "well I taught em how to protect themselves. Wash up for dinner".
Stan Kerr
This topic has generated a great deal of emotional response; I think some of
those responding are genuinely concerned for the welfare of children (however
children is construed), but the heat of the responses obscures real
issues and questions. The discussion has an air of heretics
and witches against the Holy See of Righteousness. The putative molesters
may have some points that should be thought about carefully.
Like many responders, I think it's probably appropriate to have an age
limit for sexual activity, although I would set it at 16 or 17. But
justice, to borrow from Captain Picard, is an exercise in exceptions.
If a person is called to trial for sex with a minor, it should be up to
the jury to judge the maturity and competence of the child and to set
aside the charge if they feel the child is ready for sexual activity.
(And we need juries who are properly informed of their right to do this.)
A law is only a guideline, and not a moral rule, although many laws are
derived from moral rules. If the law says "don't drive faster than 65
miles per hour", no one seriously thinks a person is BAD for disobeying it.
Likewise, because the law says "don't have sex with a person under N years
of age", this alone does not mean that a violator is bad; each of us has
to decide whether they are, and especially so for a jury.
One poster pointed out that in previous centuries sexual activity and
even marriage were expected of adolescents. None of those in this
thread who disapprove of adolescent sex with older persons has yet
condemned our forbears for this sin. The question is, why is it bad,
and why were young people then able to deal with it, but not young people
now? (Or were previous children harmed, in provable ways?)
Are we forcing children to remain immature in our culture when in
fact they can deal with a great deal more (and I don't mean just sex)?
How much of our concern for prohibiting sex with minors is just a Puritan
hangover?
In their zeal to protect children, some parents treat them as literal
chattel, simple property. Perhaps this is right, to a point, but I am not
at all comfortable with it. At some age, perhaps substantially below the
present age of consent, a child may become capable of holding rights and
making decisions. How can we reasonably decide when a child has reached
the point at which their autonomy must be respected (even if they are
financially dependent on adults)?
--
Stan Kerr Phone: (217)333-5217
Computing Services Office Email: stan...@uiuc.edu
1304 W. Springfield Avenue Working on a very gay 1992!
Urbana IL 61801
Peggy Margaret Murphy
>In article <1992Jan5....@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> jar...@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (DE Robertson james an 301-740-9172) writes:
>>> Do you actually know what the word "consensual" means? You
>>>seem to ignore it as if it were a fnord.
>>
>> I almost hate to get involved in this discussion, but here's my
>>two cents - anyone who believes that sexual relations between an adult and
>>a minor can be termed consensual is SERIOUSLY brain damaged. Chidren are
> ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
>>NOT adults and are not emotionally equipped to make adult level decisions.
>
>Children != minors. Legal adulthood begins at 18 (unless, of course,
>you want to get into that old devil stuff, drink). If you mean to
>tell me that most 17-year-olds are emotionally incapable of sexual
>relations, I laugh at you. Even so, some of the 12- and 13-year-olds
>I have known have been more emotionally ready to deal with sex than
>some of the 25-year-olds I have known. The point is that arbitrarily
>placing the age at which you become emotionally ready for sex at 18 --
>or, indeed, at any predetermined age -- is silly.
>
>____ Tim Pierce / Why do so many people fight education, when
>\ / pie...@husc.harvard.edu / it has been proven time and time again that
> \/ (aka twpi...@amherst.edu) / it is ignorance which is the killer?
> -- Erik Jones
i hate to agree with cramer, but...
tim, i agree that minor != child. however, and here is the sticky part,
who decides? where can we draw the line? let's say kid#1 is ready for
sex at 12, kid#2 is ready for sex at 15, kid#3 is ready for sex at 18, and kid#? is still not ready at 22. now what?
we have an age set, which, right or wrong, is when we consider kids to be
at least to a minimal state, grown up. this is because at this point (at
least theoretically) the majority of kids *are* at least minimally grown
up by our society's standards. if the age needs changing, then that's one
thing. but to remove the age is inviting chaos. i want that age protecprotecting *my* kids, and i wish it had protected me better!
so if you don't like having an arbitrary age, i'd like to hear a better
workable solution that still protects at least the gross majority of kids.
sigh.
on cramer's side.
peg
Peggy Margaret Murphy
>When it comes to homosexuality, I am tolerant. But when a group of
>people try to find legal justification to sexually take advantage of
>young people, I become furious. You sickos need help. Stay within
>your own age group, but do not attept to force your practices upon
>those whose minds are still deciding about their sexuality. Step
>outside yourselves, and take a look at what you are doing.
>
>
>D.T. Anderson
please do *not* believe clayton cramer that homosexuals (especially those
who post on soc.motss) support nambla. he has been accusing soc.motss of
that since i've been reading the net, and likes to take quotes out of
context/repeat over and over those who do [support nambla] to prove his
point.
the les/bi/gay community that i know, which includes some of soc.motss off
the net, abhors nambla. they are not supported, and usually not even
tolerated. do *not*, as cramer loves to do, confuse homosexuality with
pedophilia.
remember, most child molesters are heterosexuals.
peg
Herschel Browne
(Mikhail Zeleny) says:
>
>In article <1992Jan7.1...@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu>
>b...@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Beverly Huntsberger) writes:
>
>> Just wanted to point out that this is (apparently,
>> though I don't have one of those sex detection
>> terminals) a "man" defending a "man".
>>
>> I thought this sort of thing just didn't happen.
>
>of the HomIntern. RealMen would never do that to each other in public.
>
Allow me to clarify a couple of things. Brian is a man, and I am a
man. Neither of us is a "man". Brian does not need to be defended,
and I was not defending him; I was explaining the boggy ground upon
which Cramer treads.
Zeleny: Auden fan? I'm shocked.
H.
Eric S. Raymond
No, no, Mr. Casseres, you've got it all wrong.
Mr. Wall, it's all because the Radical Right and their libertarian toadies are
plotting to STEAL YOUR MANHOOD. See, they've already semiotically castrated
every right-thinking (excuse me, that's *left*-thinking) liberal in the U.S.,
and now they're going after anyone else who might oppose their racist, social-
Darwinist, eat-the-poor agenda. Any second now, Ronald Reagan and David Duke
and the ENTIRE NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY are going to break
down your bedroom door, shoot you (see? We *told* you you ought to back gun
control) and rape your girlfriend. That's what you get for not voting for
the last fuzzy-sweater candidate we ran for dogcatcher. Peace, man.
--
Eric S. Raymond = er...@snark.thyrsus.com (mad mastermind of TMN-Netnews)
Mathemagician
>In article <l4=gs...@lynx.unm.edu> bev...@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>>What if your son/daughter went out and solicited on their own?
>>What are you going to do when your children grow up and engage in
>>sexual activities without your permission?
>I will do with my 11 year old son what I have done with his
>older brother (24) and sister (20), I will treat them like
>adults. They (his older brother and sister) don't need my
>permission to have sex, why would you think otherwise?
Well, that's pretty much what I was asking, though I wasn't quite as
clear as I could have been.
>>What happens when they are 17 and the people they are having sex with
>>are 19? That's statutory rape, in some states.
>>What about your child's rights?
>Which of my child's rights am I violating when I predict my
>behavior with respect to the specific incident that I
>described?
And here is where I wasn't clear. How are you going to determine
whether or not your child is being assaulted? I am asking this
question because there are people out there who feel that *any* sexual
contact between a person under 18 and a person over 18 is a sexual
assault...even if the child initiated the contact.
I can understand you losing your temper when an assault against
someone you love takes place. I will even support you in such a
circumstance. My question is more along the lines of "What is your
definition of assault?"
>Tell me, what is your answer to your own questions? How old
>are you? How old are your children? Have you ever been
>sexually assualted? Have they ever been sexually assualted?
>Have you ever sexually assualted a child?
I am 23, have no children, do not plan on having children, have been
sexually assaulted (raped), have been sexually abused (by my mother),
and have never had sex with anyone under the age of 19 (other than
myself).
>You see I curious about why when I say if I see my child
>attacked, I would immediately respond to that attack, I am
>suddenly pictured as a gunmen (not by you) and as someone who
>is denying my children their rights. I asked the above
>questions to try to understand why you and others are reacting
>this way.
Again, my question is more in trying to find out what you consider to
be an assault. Is it any form of sexual contact between your
11-year-old and someone over the age of 18? There are people who
believe this.
Mathemagician
>Kindly observe that the above example falls squarely within the provenance
>of the HomIntern. RealMen would never do that to each other in public.
Awww...Mikhail...You're only saying that because I've slept with
Herschel and you won't ever get the chance.
Is that jealousy I see?
;-)
Mathemagician
listening, but here I am....
In article <1992Jan06.06...@netcom.COM> vl...@netcom.COM (Vladimir Kuznetsov) writes:
>In article <z19...@lynx.unm.edu> bev...@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>>That is, if we can allow two consenting adults to have sex, why can we
>>not allow two consenting people of any age to have sex?
>>Just what is it about the age of 21/18/16/14 (depending upon where you
>>live) that automatically makes you capable of giving your consent?
> How do you classify homosexual contact of mature adult with
>5-year old? What exactly does the consent of 5-year old mean?
>I'm curious to hear an answer.
Question: What is consent?
To me, it means the ability to make decisions for oneself and the
ability and willingness to take responsibility for any results.
It requires the ability to think abstractly, think about the future,
and be able to communicate those thoughts to others.
Now, I have never met a 5-year-old who could do such a thing. That
doesn't mean it can never happen, though I doubt it ever will.
>>I will, however, support the consensual activities of anybody,
>>regardless of age.
> please, give me an answer!
My point remains. If a person is not capable of giving his consent,
then it makes no difference what his age is...to have sex with him is
to molest him.
So there, vlad. You don't think a 5-year-old is capable of giving
consent. I think that if a person can't give consent, then sex with
said person is rape.
Why are we arguing?
David Marc Nieporent
>What a disgusting topic. Before you paint me as an anal-retentive conservative
>religious nut, Mr. Berger, let me just tell you that I'm not. I'm an
>individual as committed to individual freedom as anyone can be. Even my'
>faith (see my .signature) holds individual freedom as its highest value.
>
>That having been said, let me just say I find the goals and intents of NAMBLA
>to be abhorrent.
>
>Your comments regarding the disdain of violent threats are approporiate,
>but your sad party-line rationalizations of the sexual abuse of children are
>of an equally low mindset -- you take the antiviolence high ground and use
>it do dive into the midden of child sexual abuse.
>
>In <1992Jan7.1...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> berger@iboga (Mike Berger) writes:
>>In my observations, sexual assult on children is almost universally
>>condemned in this file. The issue under discussion is consensual sex.
>
>Sorry, wrong. You cannot be discussing consensual sex if you are planning
>on having it with 17 year olds. Why? Because 17-year-olds are held to be
>too young to reasonably determine that they want to have sex with an adult.
>Will SOME 17-year-olds actually be mature enough to do so? Sure. So what?
>In order to BEST PROTECT ALL CHILDREN the cutoff has been set at the age of
>18. If the members of NAMBLA can't keep their hands off their intended
>partners till they turn 18 they are seriously lacking in self-control.
Well, this is a real argument. 17 year olds are defined as being
immature, therefore they are immature. ?????? Say What???? Most of
the people you're busy insulting as having no self control are trying to
get the laws redefined so that 17 year olds are *not* considered immature.
In order to best protect people, you could set the age limit at 35.
Then some of the people immature at 21 would be protected. But is this
reasonable?
>And here's a point: why the terminology "Man-Boy Love"? Why not "Adult-Child"?
>I mean, why be sexist here? Legally there is no difference between any adult
>engaging in statutory rape with a child of either gender.
>
>I think the reason is twofold: the first is the practical reason that the its
>members are all homo- or bisexual. Nonetheless, the Adult-Child name could
>still work. The second and more important reason is that we as a culture
>hold the bias that girls (women under 18) need more protection than boys.
>Boys being males and males being held to be more powerful, it's more acceptable
>to suggest boys be sexually victimized because it's easier to believe the
>sad rationalization that they are old enough to consent to sex even while
>under the age of consent.
>
>In other words, NAMBLA is NAMBLA and not NAACLA because it's easier to appeal
>to the latent sexism of our culture to gain a facade of acceptability.
>
>In <1992Jan7.1...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> berger@iboga (Mike Berger) writes:
>>And some people should be protected against others who refuse to
>>let them think for themselves. I doubt that there are many 17 year
>>olds that WANT your protection. Especially since it probably involves a gun.
>
>You know, it's funny, I agree with you on two things here:
> 1) threating to shoot people is uncalled-for
> 2) there are few 17 year olds that want protection. In fact I'd go as
> far as to say that NO 17 year olds want adult protection.
>
>However, as regards point two I have this to say:
> TOO DAMNED BAD FOR THEM
>
>The whole POINT to being an ADULT is to PROTECT OUR CHILDREN whether they
>WANT IT OR NOT. Shit, if you protected your children only when they wanted
>it, they'd be dead the first time their baseball rolled into the street.
>
>You claim that by making underage sex illegal the law discourages youth from
>thinking for themselves. What you ignore is the FACT that CHILDREN are much
>more vulnerable to adult coercion than are adults. The members of NAMBLA would
Anybody who lives in a country in which Ronald Reagan got elected can't
possibly say that adults are harder to coerce than children.
>if allowed be off convincing young boys to engage in sex before those children
>fully mature: NAMBLA does not want young boys to think for themselves!
>NAMBLA wants the world to turn its back while children are coerced into having
>sex for the pleasure of the adults. Would the children enjoy the sex, too?
>Maybe -- but would the children be damaged by the experience? The law says
>YES, regardless of whether it's man-boy or woman-boy or whatever.
>The line has to be drawn somewhere and it's drawn at age 18. As adults,
>NAMBLA members should have the restraint and compassion to wait for their
>love-interests to grow up enough to be able to think for themselves, and
>shouldn't second-guess the rest of the world as to when that process has
>completed. If it really WAS love, that's what NAMBLA members would do.
>
>However NAMBLA's motivations come less from the heart than from the loins
>(in my opinion), otherwise they would not attempt to victimize children in
>this way. One needs only see the damage that sexual abuse causes and actual
>love would convince even NAMBLA members to err on the side of caution and
>WAIT TILL THE CHILDREN MATURE.
Being close to the child age myself (20), I'm continually amazed at
people who are 30, 40 years old who seem to have forgotten what it's
like to be a child, and think children are really stupid. Thus, we have
people who want to restrict advertising, sex, sex ed, etc, because they're
afraid children can't handle it. When *you* were younger, were you so
easily manipulated? I wasn't, and neither are most other children.
Especially people who are 17, who are only 'children' under very recent
definition. (People used to get married at adolesence, 13-14 or so.)
--
-----------------------------
David M. Nieporent niep...@phoenix.princeton.edu
Cal Ripken Jr -- 1992 AL MVP and Gold Glove SS!!! (And All Star Game MVP)
"Farther behind in my work than Valentine"
Bil Snodgrass
First, I do not know enough about NAMBL to have an opinion about them (except
if you do touch at eight your face I will break!), so
in no way am I going to support them.
Personally, I am Gay and almost 32 and for me anything under 30 is a little
too young. But I do remember back when I was twelve and thirteen. When
I had crushes on grown men, nice and caring men. Nothing ever came of these
crushes, but I wish something would have happened. Most of my friends
were young and middle age adults. I just related to them better than
kids my own age. At twelve I was sexually active, at least with myself.
To have had a warm caring man take me under his arm and show me what sex
was like would have been just perfect. At that time I wasn't ready for
love, that's more complicated than sex.
Now on the other hand, I have many friends who were sexually molested as
children. A very good friend of mine was pressured into having
sex with a man when he was thirteen. He was too embarresed to tell
his family. They found out finally because they had sent my friend to
counciling after he woke up screaming in the middle of the night and
bursted out crying during the middle of the day. My friend was not
ready to have sex. He was violated and to this day, approx. 17 years
after the fact, he is still wadding through the emotional garbage that
molestation victims have to go through. This man took away my friends
childhood and has ruinded most of his young adulthood.
So what is right? Society tells us that 18 is when one becomes
a responsible adult (ha!) and yet biology (as directed and mapped out
by God) has adulthood arriving at puberty in the early teens. Is it
possible that modern society has gone against the natural law? Why
were young adults 13 and 14 until the last century or so?
I feel that I was cheated. My rights were taken away from me. My right
to seek out a relationship with an older man.
I feel that my friend was cheated. His right to seek sexual relationships
when he was ready, not when some "rapist" thought it was right.
Why can't we move the minimum age down to 12 or 13? If a violation of
a young adults body occurs, don't call it molestation call it what it is,
RAPE!!!!!! And dish out FULL punishment to these violators (not be
wishy washy like the present legal system is).
Bil Snodgrass III
P.S. My Gay roommate's 9 year old daughter was molested by the
HETEROSEXUAL MALE cab driver this morning on her way to school (the school
district feels that sending a cab rather than a bus is cheaper). Some
times I really wonder if all of the attacts on Gays are just a smoke
screen put up by the HETEROSEXUAL MALES so that they can continue
their molestation of our children (over 90% of child molestations are
a result of HETEROSEXUAL MEN)!!!!!
richard.f.j.soyack
>
>Again, my question is more in trying to find out what you consider to
>be an assault. Is it any form of sexual contact between your
>11-year-old and someone over the age of 18? There are people who
>believe this.
Yes, any form of sexual contact between my 11 year old and
someone over the age of 18 would be considered to be an
assualt by me because I know my son. What we have here is the
classic difference between a theoretical question and a real
world question. My son and I talk and are very open with one
another. I am not discussing some hypothetical person I am
discussing the person I talk to every day. The person I've
lived with for the past 11 years. Throughout this discussion
I have limited myself to that one person and a narrowly
defined set of circumstances.
Someone else pointed out that parents forget what its like to
be a child. This is often true. I've often said that we are
at our best as parents when we remember what it was like to be
children. However, I have also said that the only perfect
parents in the world are those who do not have any children.
I see parenting as my most important job, but its the one I'm
least trained for. Its all on the job training. We struggle
from day to day trying to do what's right. We make mistakes,
we do good things but we try.
Another person pointed out (it may have been the same person I
eluded to in the above paragraph) said that children are not
easily manipulated because that person is 20 (I think) and
they are not easily manipulated. When I was 20 I didn't think
I was easily manipulated either, but the older I get the more
I see how easy it is to manipulate me. There are far too many
examples in the real world of children being manipulated for
this statement to stand. Think of the children who blame
themselves for divorce, or children who see their importance
attached to owning the right video game, or the child who
engages in some senseless act of vandalism in order to fit in
with a crowd.
I remember what I was like as a teenager. My body and mind
were going through all of those changes. I was ashamed of
things I later found out were common. I was considered to be
a leader by many of my contemporaries but I was so easily led.
So many times I look at my children and see myself at that
age. A good friend of mine on Long Island once said to me
that the most important message she tries to give her cildren
is that while they are unique people they should realize that
the things they are going through are common experiences.
They should not be afraid to feel things and express those
feelings.
Lou Marco told me I should only use a certain amount of force
and no more. I am honest enough to recognize that if I hit
someone even once there is the potential that I might kill
that person. I have worked as a bouncer at rock concerts,
during that period (two years) I never hit anyone, but I saw a
number of my fellow bouncers hitting people and saw how easily
something like that got out of control. In the ideal
situation I might restrain the assualtant, comfort my son, and
call the police to deal with the criminal act. In the real
world I know I would lose my temper. I remember when I was 25
I was walking in Bayside and I saw a group of about a dozen
boys in their late teens giving a boy in his early teens a
hard time. There was no sexual content, they just had him
surrounded and they were shouting at him and pushing him. I
walked up to the young boy and told the older boys to leave
him alone. Then I walked with the boy for about a block until
I felt the incident was over. Two days later I met two of
the older boys. They started to act tough, calling me a
hippie, asking me if I wanted them to kill my kitten (I was a
hippie, and I was carring home a new kitten), and telling me
that they were going to "deal" with the young boy I had
protected. I lost my temper, put the kitten down, lifted up
the biggest of the two boys and slammed him down on the hood
of the car he had been sitting on and let him know that he had
just voiced some very bad ideas. Did I act rationally, no,
did I lose my temper, yes, did I stop these kids from doing
what they threatened, yes. That would be my reaction if I saw
my 11 year old son assualted. Stop the assualt, and let
people know that assualting my son is a very bad idea. Now
its very easy to sit at a terminal and tell me what I should
have done in that situation and what I should do in case my
son was assaulted, but, and please understand this, I did not
start this as an intellectual discussion, but as a real world
example of what I feel would happen.
Rich Soyack
mike o
> >you want to get into that old devil stuff, drink). If you mean to
> >tell me that most 17-year-olds are emotionally incapable of sexual
> >relations, I laugh at you. Even so, some of the 12- and 13-year-olds
> >I have known have been more emotionally ready to deal with sex than
> >some of the 25-year-olds I have known. The point is that arbitrarily
> >placing the age at which you become emotionally ready for sex at 18 --
> >or, indeed, at any predetermined age -- is silly.
> i hate to agree with cramer, but...
> tim, i agree that minor != child. however, and here is the sticky part,
> who decides? where can we draw the line? let's say kid#1 is ready for
> sex at 12, kid#2 is ready for sex at 15, kid#3 is ready for sex at 18,
> and kid#? is still not ready at 22. now what?
>
So many netters seem to miss the point of the laws. They are not
there (nor used) to keep kids from having sex before ANY particular
age. They are there to keep ADULTS from having sex with kids. Yes,
many kids are sexual and mature and ready, etc. And they may have
sex with other KIDS their age and explore/realize their sexuality
Yeah I know there are a few states that have statutory laws
against this too but very few and in fact they are virtually
never exercised because these particular laws too arte really
meant to prevent kid/adult stuff. No one is going to prosecute
a 15 year old for having sex with a 13 year old, etc, regardless
of the fact of female/male mal/female male/male, etc., even if
the parents of the respective ones wanted it (and as I say, very
few laws actually forbid this). It is my opinion (I admit, an
opinion, not a fact) that NAMBLA exists purely to legitimize
the wants of certain adults to be sexual with kids, which I find
selfish, whether or not it is sick or not (my opinion on this
intentionally left blank, you may be suprised).
The laws are fine as is in my opinion, are seldom (if ever)
abused and those who seek to change them are welcome to try
(good luck).
Mike
Albatross
>In article <1992Jan9.1...@news2.cis.umn.edu>
>alb...@mudhoney.micro.umn.edu (Albatross) writes:
>> Sorry, wrong. You cannot be discussing consensual sex if you are planning
>> on having it with 17 year olds. Why? Because 17-year-olds are held to be
>> too young to reasonably determine that they want to have sex with an adult.
>> Will SOME 17-year-olds actually be mature enough to do so? Sure. So what?
>> In order to BEST PROTECT ALL CHILDREN the cutoff has been set at the age of
>> 18. If the members of NAMBLA can't keep their hands off their intended
>> partners till they turn 18 they are seriously lacking in self-control.
>Funny, last time I looked
Oh, so you're a lawyer?
>it was legal in many (most?) states for people
>over the age of 18 to marry people under the age of 18.
I'll bet parental consent is required if those laws even exist.
>I find this thread so ridiculous. I [...tales of sexual prodigy omitted...]
Just because you feel you were not harmed by these experiences does not mean
that others would not be harmed. Additionaly, I'd argue that if your
priorities at age 14 or 15 focussed so greatly on sexual conquest, you were
indeed harmed by early sexual experiences. There's more to growing up than
having sex.
>Are "children" under the age of 18 capable of making rational
>choices? Some are. Some aren't. Eighteen is a purely arbitrary
>cutoff -- why not raise it to 21?
Why not? But that's not what's being discussed here. Don't change the
subject. A line has been drawn arbitrarily because it's impossible to
set a different line for each child, nor is it possible to draw a perfect
line for everybody. Youthful examples of sexual-emotional maturity like
yourself will just have to wait, so others are not harmed. I'm sure, "loving"
boys as you do, you want only the best for them.
>Why is it that we (as a society)
>will trust a 16 year old when he's behind the wheel of a two-ton truck,
>but not when he's in its backseat?
Because driving and sex are two different things. You keep using distraction
in order to sidetrack the issue. We're not talking about 16 year old driving
records, we're talking about an organization of adults who want legal
permission to take advantage of vulnerable children.
--
Bob Alberti: Computer & Information Services U of MN |aka: Albatross| Unitar-
Internet : alb...@boombox.micro.umn.edu |Metropolis BBS| ian/
Disclaimer : My employer does not mean what I say. |(612) 721-1870| Univer-
Ingredients: 30% header, 30% quote, 10% comment, 30% cutesy signature.| salist!
Duane P Mantick
>> Amen! I too have an eleven year old (a daughter), and believe me, if
>>any slimy pervert child molester attempted to abuse her, the cops
>>would be the least of his problems. Do you understand, I don't care
>>about your rights, I don't care about the law, I don't care about
>>prison, abuse my child and I will do everything within my power to
>>hunt you down and kill you. If you are lucky, and the law finds you
>>first, I will be waiting at the prison gate when you get out. Only
>>a parent can understand how important a child is.
>So, if your daughter gets molested, she is going to have to cope with
>both the trauma of the molestation *AND* the emotional turmoil of having
>a parent go to jail for murder?
Tim, there is something referred to in court as "justifiable
homicide". What that means in this case is while *you* may not think
it is justified, the *court* may view it VERY differently.
Duane
Nosy
< In article <90...@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu> jno...@bgsu.edu (Aqualung) writes:
< >
< > A 300lb woman and a 160lb husband, huh? I guess that this means either
< >love really IS blind, or some people aren't as bright as they could be.
< >I'd have been gone at 180lbs. Think I'm kidding? Ask my ex.
< well, you probably can't help being an insensitive
< asshole.
I always enjoy seeing rational debate; I wonder
when or if "cupid's six-pack" will ever offer any?
<did you offer her any moral support or
< encouragement to lose weight, or did you just tell
< her you'd leave if she didn't? and why was her
< size so important to you? did you not love her
< for anything but her figure, or were you afraid your
< friends would laugh at you for having a fat wife,
< or were you just too insecure to deal with not
< being bigger, heavier, and more physically imposing?
< you sound like a real dickhead. if my husband put
< a weight limit on his love for me I'D leave HIM.
"Six-pack" thus denies the feelings of yet
another "asshole"; one cannot help wondering
if "cupid's six-pack" has set a minimal
DOLLAR limit on her love for "her" man?
Albatross
In <1992Jan10....@lclark.edu> snod...@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
>But I do remember back when I was twelve and thirteen. When
>I had crushes on grown men, nice and caring men. Nothing ever came of these
>crushes, but I wish something would have happened.
The youthful first infatuation is a standard experience for both gays and
straights. Societally, we accept that children are too vulnerable for these
experiences. Think about how you've been hurt in your relationships: would
you really wish that pain upon a child version of yourself?
>To have had a warm caring man take me under his arm and show me what sex
>was like would have been just perfect. At that time I wasn't ready for
>love, that's more complicated than sex.
Would have been perfect? How would you know? The grass is always greener
on the other side of the fence. Maybe it would have been harmful.
>Now on the other hand, I have many friends who were sexually molested as
>children.
Like that.
>He was violated and to this day, approx. 17 years
>after the fact, he is still wadding through the emotional garbage that
>molestation victims have to go through. This man took away my friends
>childhood and has ruinded most of his young adulthood.
Exactly. And isn't it better if 100 young boys wait till they're a little
older than that one more child be sexually damaged like your friend?
>So what is right? Society tells us that 18 is when one becomes
>a responsible adult (ha!) and yet biology (as directed and mapped out
>by God) has adulthood arriving at puberty in the early teens. Is it
>possible that modern society has gone against the natural law? Why
>were young adults 13 and 14 until the last century or so?
Because OLD adults were 35! When your life expectancy extends from 35-40 to
65-80, it's natural for childhood to also be extended. If you want to go
back to a 35-40 year life expectancy, maybe age of majority could be 13 or
14 again.
>I feel that I was cheated. My rights were taken away from me. My right
>to seek out a relationship with an older man.
Poppycock. First of all NAMBLA is not interested in your childish right to
seek out a relationship with an older man. NAMBLA is interested in the desire
of ADULTS to seek out relationships with CHILDREN. Second your argument is
specious -- you were being protected from harm, and you choose to ignore the
possibility of harm and paint this Might-Have-Been relationship in purely
bright colors. Well, sorry, maybe you would have been damaged like your
friend.
>I feel that my friend was cheated. His right to seek sexual relationships
>when he was ready, not when some "rapist" thought it was right.
Right, so don't we ERR on the side of CAUTION? Let's ask this: were you
as damaged by having to wait until you were older as your friend who was
abused?
>Why can't we move the minimum age down to 12 or 13? If a violation of
>a young adults body occurs, don't call it molestation call it what it is,
>RAPE!!!!!! And dish out FULL punishment to these violators (not be
>wishy washy like the present legal system is).
Because 12 and 13 year olds are much more easily convinced to say that it
wasn't rape when it was. Threats, shaming, guilt-trips, promises, threats
of suicide by their adult partner, these are all weapons we protect our
children from.
>P.S. My Gay roommate's 9 year old daughter was molested by the
>HETEROSEXUAL MALE cab driver this morning on her way to school
And have you done anything about it but piss and moan on the computer?
>Sometimes I really wonder if all of the attacts on Gays are just a smoke
>screen put up by the HETEROSEXUAL MALES so that they can continue
>their molestation of our children (over 90% of child molestations are
>a result of HETEROSEXUAL MEN)!!!!!
That's why NAMBLA is a misnomer as I said in another message. NAMBLA members
can hide behind accusations of homophobia when someone questions their agenda.
They play on cultural sexism that says that young boys are less vulnerable than
young girls. If they were an organization dedicated to lowering the age of
consent for all children, their intent would be clearer.
Russell Turpin
In article <1992Jan10....@lclark.edu> snod...@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
> ... A very good friend of mine was pressured into having
> sex with a man when he was thirteen. ... My friend was not
> ready to have sex. ...
>
> Why can't we move the minimum age down to 12 or 13? If a violation of
> a young adults body occurs, don't call it molestation call it what it
Mr Snodgrass is mistaken about what rape is. Rape has nothing to
do with "pressure", which can mean anything from showering someone
with gifts to making a nuisance of oneself by frequent proposals.
In most states, the varieties of sexual assault and rape are
defined by some combination (not exclusively) of:
o *physical* coercion or its threat,
o mental incapacity,
o abuse of authoritative capacity,
o abuse ntoxicating substances (ie, drugging someone), or
o youthfulness of the victim.
Were the age of consent thirteen, I suspect that what happened to Mr
Snodgrass's friend would be legal. (Of course, it may be rape or
sexual assault, depending one what Mr Snodgrass meant by "pressure".)
It would be a terrible mistake to make criminal all the various ways
that people try to persuade each other to act or think in certain
ways, except for very specific wrong acts, such as those listed above.
Supposedly, mentally competent, undrugged adults are capable of
dealing with most kinds of pressure that is exerted on them all
the time for a variety of reasons, including in the arena of
relationships and love. The entire purpose of an age of consent is
to declare, for legal purposes, when people are presumed capable of
dealing with such pressure.
Russell
The Terminator
>Although MIT is pretty lame when it comes to pranks (compared to a real
>school, such as Caltech), that would be particularly lame, even for MIT.
>
> Tim Smith
You have scheduled for termination.
Hillel Gazit
><<<sssnnnnniiiiifffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff>>>
>Ahhhhhh.... the smell of fresh testosterone in the air...
<<<sssnnnnniiiiifffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff>>>
Ahhhhhh.... the smell of a "men are evil" feminist in the air...
Tara Calishain
>
> Mr. Wall, it's all because the Radical Right and their libertarian toadies ar
> every right-thinking (excuse me, that's *left*-thinking) liberal in the U.S.,
> and now they're going after anyone else who might oppose their racist, social
> and the ENTIRE NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY are going to break
> down your bedroom door, shoot you (see? We *told* you you ought to back gun
> control) and rape your girlfriend. That's what you get for not voting for
> the last fuzzy-sweater candidate we ran for dogcatcher. Peace, man.
> --
Thank goodness. The strength of that one post to break through these
dour subtopics and revitalize the brain like an Energizer Rabbit
Commerical...
NEXT SLIDE!
Teej