From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: Re: The Zekester gets Serious, Maybe...
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 10:31:16 GMT

In article <21DEC199222470145@rigel.tamu.edu>
     olw7845@rigel.tamu.edu (Zeke E. Pez) writes:

>Rob, you have only reinforced my notion that the phrase "Consenting Adults"
>is a very gray area that adds to the vagueness of the PRO HOMO stance.

>Hetero, Homo, Necros, *Beasto's*, Pedo's, and Bisexuals (sorry I failed to 
>mention this earlier) are all _sexual orientations_.  It has also been said 
>that these behaviours are inhereted (for the most part). Now when legislation
>is passed to protect discrimination based on _sexual orientation_, It MUST
>protect all of them including PEDOPHILIA.  Why is this so?
>Because this behaviour is deemed inhereted.  The person cannot be expected to
>hide his sexuality. If it is o.k. for the HOMO to galavant about screaming that
>"GAY is O.K." , and some HETERO mouthing off that "HETERO is the way to go",
>why should the PEDOPHILE or NECROPHILE be shut in their closet?

   Except, Zeke, that we're *still* talking about the concept of
"consenting adults" and behavior.  At the minimal, conceptual level, I
believe that it is immoral and unreasonable for *anyone* to dictate how
someone else should live their lives.  Consenting adults dictate how
their own lives should be lived.

   It is *not* unreasonable to *be* a paedophile, a bestialist, or a
necrophile.  It *is* unreasonable *to rape* a child or an unwilling
animal.  The rapist is behaving in a non-consensual manner.  And if you
want my opinion, s/he should be removed from the gene pool in the most
expedient manner possible.  The person who touches my kid will find
himself on a one-way ticket to Hell.  I am drawing a line between
reasonable and unreasonable *behavior*.

   You make no such distinction.

>If your answer is yes, it is o.k. to discriminate against them because they
>have partners that cannot consent, then you are a hipocrite because we
>have already agreed that discrimination is discrimination.

   Except society and the law have agreed that it's perfectly fine to
discriminate against rapists and murderers.  In fact, it's perfectly
legal to continue discriminating against them *after* they have "served
their sentence;" they are, for example, forbidden to vote or own a
handgun.

   Personally, someone who collect Simeon Smith art or Bodil doesn't
bother me in the least.  I might be a little leery of letting him/her
near my kids and/or dog, but then I'd be a little leery of letting even
friendly Mormons near my kids and/or dog, too...

>But you will strike a blow
>to the notion that "consenting adults" is a valid qualifier for the HOMO's.

   Why?  Unlike all the other groups in question, I and my boyfriend
*can* clearly and explicitly say "yes" to each other.  Hell, we can
even write it down if we want to.  What's the problem there?

>By the way, NO ONE has submitted an adequate definition of an ADULT.
>What is the matter, can the PRO HOMO factions not justify their own
>qualifier of what an ADULT is?

   No.  And neither can you.  That's why we can vote and die at 18, but
not drink until 21.  That's why in 13 states we can marry at age 14,
but in 21 states we can't have sex until we're sixteen.  And that's why
I fucked my first lover even though, legally, he still wasn't "an
adult."  Because he was enough of an adult to me.

      Elf !!!
--
elf@halcyon.com  (Elf Sternberg)

Then, I was inspired.               God, thy will is hard
Now, I'm sad and tired.             But you hold every card.
Listen, surely I've exceeded        I will drink your cup of poison.
Expectations.                       Nail me to your cross and break me.
Tried for three years,              Bleed me, beat me.
Seems like thirty.                  Kill me.
Could you ask as much               Take me now.
From any other man?                 Before I change my mind.