From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:45:23 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov17.161012.248@hellgate.utah.edu>, speterse%peruvian.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (soren--Ms. Jackson if you're nasty) writes:
> In article <13186@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <1992Nov14.202602.23939@gordian.com>, mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
# ##   Oh yes, keep dreaming. You, Clayton Cramer, have done more to
# ## give NAMBLA a platform than anybody else I know of. I guess 
# ## you should work on your self loathing.
# 
# #By saying that the homosexual community should shun NAMBLA, I
# #give them a platform?  I guess Bnai Brith gives neo-Nazis a platform,
# #too.
# 
# This from someone who has repeatedly claimed that the "fascist homosexual 
# lobby" is to blame for the success of the OCA?

Certainly.  Most people in America are prepared to live and let
live on the subject of homoseuxality -- until propagandists for
homosexuality start working their way through the public schools.

# ## # Take a look at California's laws on child molestation.  It's
# ## # obvious they are written the way they are to benefit homosexuals.
#  
# ##   !!! Are you actually suggesting that legislators purposefully wrote
# ## laws which benefit homosexual molestors? You realize, that would be the
# 
# #Sure.  Willie Brown, Assemblyman from San Francisco, has been speaker
# #of the Assembly for many years now.
# 
# #[specifics of the bill deleted -- it's illegal to have sex with
# # a female under the age of 18, and a male under the age of 14.]
# 
# #The law is not gender specific -- but it's clear that by making
# #sexual intercourse illegal for a girl under 18, but sodomy and
# #oral sex legal for a boy under 18, that the Legislature sought to
# #protect the interests of the homosexual community.
# 
# This doesn't follow at all.  While the law may very well have the
# effect of benefitting some parts of the homosexual community, I
# don't see any reason to believe that that was the intent of the law.
# Why not argue that the intent of the bill was to uphold Traditional
# Family Values (it is VERY VERY important that girls remain virgins,
# but boys are allowed to fool around)?  Or that the intent of the bill

Because the unlawful sexual intercourse law is quite old, while
the other parts are recently adopted.

# was to take account of the fact that heterosexual sex between a young
# adolescent and an adult is not generally considered traumatic if the
# adolescent is male?
# 
# soren f petersen           :        i AM NOT          :    --Doc

Not at all clear.  It would have been far simpler to have just
made the unlawful sexual intercourse law non-sexist, or to have
passed a law prohibiting oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse 
between an adult and a child under <pick an age#.  Instead, they
left a gender-specific law in place, and passed a new, very
complicated one that allowed adults to sodomize teenaged boys.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Foxes prefer rabbits with short claws." -- Nadja Adolf
Newsgroups: misc.legal