From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Defending Dahmer Wasn't Satire
Date: 13 Nov 92 17:24:50 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <BxKuHK.HtG@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi) writes:
> In article <13065@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> )To demonstrate that there are legitimate reasons to discriminate
> )against homosexuals, at least in jobs that involve being in charge
> )of children.
> 
> I came across the following in the latest Playboy:
> 
> 	According to a report based on a decade of research into
> 	pedophilia ("The Cruelest Crime," published in Life in 1984), a
> 	disproportionate number of pedophiles are outwardly religious.

Odd.  But when I look in scholarly works about the subject, they
say that this isn't true.  Here's what I posted:

$ A great many lies have been told by the homosexual community,
$ attempting to cover over the fact that those child molesters
$ who are primarily interested in young boys ARE homosexuals --
$ and quite dangerous, because they usually have much larger
$ numbers of victims than the sick creatures that go after
$ little girls.  One of the lies is that religious homes are
$ more likely to have child molestation problems in them.  Faller
$ discusses this issue, and while agreeing that some molesters
$ are members of "marginal religous cults" set up to provide a
$ social justification for child molestation, and some molesters
$ "turn to religion as a reaction formation, or in order to
$ cope with the gult and shame they feel about the sexual abuse,"
$ "sexually abusive behavior does not appear more prevalent among
$ religious people."[Faller, 193]

Admittedly, when you have to pick between a scholarly work and
_Playboy_ as a source, it's a very hard choice. :-)

> By your reasoning, it would be legitimate to discriminate against the
> openly religious; to trust only atheists, agnostics, and religionists
> who don't flaunt it in positions that involve being in charge of
> children.  I can't remember you ever having claimed to belong to any
> religion, so I expect this would be no skin off your nose personally.
> Still...  Would you support such policies against openly religious
> people with anything like the zeal with which you support such policies
> against homosexuals?

I don't support policies AGAINST homosexuals.  I support the right
of private employers to make their own decisions.  If a day care
center only feels comfortable hiring people of similar religious
beliefs, or antireligious beliefs, that's fine with me.  It's NOT
the government's business who they hire.

> )# What is the point of his mining
> )# soc.motss for things he can (mis)interpret as support for Jeffrey
> )# Dahmer?
> )
> )To demonstrate that homosexuals are NOT healthy, well-adjusted
> )people who just have different sexual preferences.
> 
> ...with the ultimate goal of justifying discrimination and prejudice
> against them.  I can only judge from the example I saw you post, and
> that example could only be interpreted as support for Dahmer by
> somebody who *wants* *badly* to find support for Dahmer in it.

Yet, even homosexuals in soc.motss interpreted those postings in
that way.

> David Canzi


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Racism is "class struggle" applied to ethnicity.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections