From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Raises a new question (Re: Is sexuality chosen or inborn?)
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 18:36:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.181801.20427@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>In article <1993Jan1.153755.919@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>
>>	Many gays complain that their orientation is discriminated against
>>	by omission--that is, since there aren't homosexual characters in
>>	books,movies, whatever--they are being discriminated against.
>
>    Yes, many do.  This form of discrimination, of course, pales beside
>societal marraige, adoption, etc. laws - those are the more important
>discriminatory issues, imho.


	This is not a form of discrimination.


>>>>        How could one decide what to protect, preference or orientation, or
>>>>        both with respect to anti-discrimination laws?
>>>
>>>    For me, the criterion is whether it's consensual and whether no one is
>>>harmed.
>>
>>	Well,that's the rub, isn't it?  A lot of people feel that
>>	homosexuals are mentally ill (and the rabble at the pride marches
>>	doesn't help) and are *unable to give consent*.  
>
>    Well, just when you think you've heard it all...so people object to gays
>because their sexual practices are mutually non-consensual, since they are
>too mentally ill to give consent?  Incredible.


	I'm sure you've heard it before.


>>	... people who claim that homosexuals are not ill and
>>	can give consent tend to be homosexuals.
>
>    Oh, really?  Are you really this stupid, or do you like starting
>flamewars?


	Clever the way you cut out the first half of that point.
	
	"There are some people who believe that children
	can, indeed, give consent.  These people happen
	to be the same people interested inraping children.
	Likewise, "

	<paraphrase>

	If you cannot be more clever, than your assertion is a bunch
	bullshit.  If I kill someone who wanted to commit suicide,
	say, some wayward cheerleader who got stood up for the prom--
	should I be convicted for murder because she was mentally ill
	and obviously unable to give proper consent?  

	Actually, that's not a good example.  A better example is the
	case that is being tried now involving 8 adolescents and 
	an 18 year old (age uncertain) retarded girl with the approximate
	intellect of an eight year old.  Now, this girl is of age,
	but they are aiming that she was unable to give _consent_
	because she does not have the mental capacity to do so.  

	You cannot answer a point with a flame, Howard.  It doesn't
	work.  If you cannot address the point, concede that you are
	unable, or don't respond.  Usenet gets enough flames without
	the weak-minded trying to hid behind them because they are
	unable to reply intelligently.

	In case it makes you feel better, I do not hold these views
	myself.  But the vast majority of the worlds population does,
	in fact, hold these views or views quite similar.  Just because
	you don't agree with them doesn't make them wrong--your
	opinions do not outweigh anyone else's, and in this case,
	it's *all* opinion.



-- 
	Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.

         ---  boycott == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
		   	     Pain teaches.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush