From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,misc.legal
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Date: 14 Nov 92 06:04:30 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:

>  Gawd, school's in again. Another shining example of our public school
>system's utter failure.

>In article <Bxny3z.Aww@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>> You both seem to agree that child molesters are bad.  You disagree about
>> whether homosexuality is also bad.  Why is your judgement on homosexuality
>> superior to his judgement?  Society used to ban homosexuality and child
>> molestation.  Now you are working to make sure it only bans child 
>> molestation.  Perhaps the child molesters will work to make sure they are
>> also socially acceptable and your words will be viewed as bigoted by
>> a later generation.  Will that make child molestation "right" and "good"?

>  Let put this very simply so you *might* have a chance of understanding.
>Molestation of children involves a fundamentally coersed transaction.
>Young children are not capable of giving consent and as such can never
>be on equal terms with an adult. Homosexuality between consenting adults
>is not coersed and therefore the government should have no interest
>in it, one way or the other.

True and irrelevant.  Since the court would have determined the "child"
to be a mature decision maker, there is no coercion.  Remember, the idea
is that a "mature" twelve year old is capable of making choices of where
s/he wants to live.  The former child has his/her own lawyer.  Of course
no coercion is involved.  The concept of statutory rape and child 
molestation becomes increasingly difficult to maintain when 12-year olds
are deemed "mature" - note the recent case in Florida in which two men
who had statutorily raped two young girls (albeit with  their "consent")
were let off.  The whole point behind "child divorce" is that the child
*IS* on equal terms with the parent.  Sheesh.
> 
>> You dislike the idea that society may proscribe homosexual activity because
>> you engage in homosexual activity.  Too damn bad.  There is action which,
>> no matter how pleasant it may be to the actor(s) involved, should not be
>> allowed in a society.  

>  You dislike the idea that society may proscribe morons from posting
>from UIUC because you are a moron posting from UIUC. Too damn bad.
>  Look buster, I suggest that you go back and take a remedial civics
>class and find where in the constituion society gets the right to
>legislate morality. Hint: it ain't there. Just because enough thugs
>of your kind get together does not make it Right.

I suggest you get rid of your preconceptions and take a close look at
what the law is actually saying.  You apparently are clueless.
And when the law legislates about legal or illegal homosexual activity
or legal/illegal abortion or legal/illegal anything else, it *IS* 
legislating morality - that's what the law is about.  The question is,
whose morality gets to be legal, yours or mine?

>-- 

>		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)

Steve Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections