From: tdbear@dvorak.amd.com (Thomas D. Barrett)
Subject: Re: Pedophilia as sexual orientation
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.; Austin, Texas
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 22:48:01 GMT

In article <1k18f0INN2o4@meaddata.meaddata.com> markw@meaddata.com (Mark Wasson) writes:
>There is a discussion on our company's local net concerning pedophilia as
>one type of sexual orientation.

What an interesting internal forum you have :)

I sorta support those "sexual orientation" clauses versus "homosexual"
ones in the CO-2 type iniatives simply because heterosexuality is an
orientation and such laws could be interpreted to remove all benefits
that the heterosexuals enjoy, thus equalizing all of us.  But, it
is just a personal curiosity and nothing that I would wish on anyone.

Anyway... I personally don't like the "sexual" in sexual orientation
because part of the sexual orientation is learned and rational.  The
underlying "affectional orientation" may be totally different.  And,
for that matter, the person's sexual orientation doesn't really 
define what they actually do sexually.

"Affectional orientation" is also much easier to argue on a moral
and religious level since it is ONLY about affection and feelings...
sex is a natural follow-up to such feelings, but that is a totally
different subject, namely "sexual orientation."

So... if you ever get into a situation were someone is refusing to
grant rights because they are all uptight over the sex issues, then
compromise on the "affectional orientation." It would be an ideal
world if an employer, for example, would ignore what an employee does
afterhours, but in the real-world they are concerned about image and
team compatibility (emphasis on the latter).  

While one could argue that most don't have much concern over typical 
homosexuality, there still are those you would have trouble dealing 
with someone into one of the scenes.  Although it is clearly the 
problem with the other person or even with society, in general, not 
being able to accept the different sexuality, realistically it will 
be the different person who will be changed or eliminated.

How does this fit back into your original question?  If it isn't
obvious, then let me explain... I would say that some pedophillia is
the classic child abuse case (I said some).  In this scenerio, the
abuser does not have an underlying affectional orientation nor an
underlying sexual orientation, necessarily.  This is something that
they learned (supposedly).  

It is hard for me to comment on the orientation aspects, because I
don't know enough about psychological studies of these folks.  I see
the possibility that pedophiles could be in any of the three
catagories.  Those that I mentioned above, the ones who see children
as sexual objects of desire, and/or the ones who feel affection only
for children.

It is obviously a society which must come in and decide what is the
best thing for its children.  Clearly, it has been decided that child
abuse is wrong and needs to be stopped.  The question remains on
whether people can actually have a sexual orientation for only
children or if it is just a symptom of some other underlying problem.
Just having affection for children doesn't seem a danger at first
glance, but if taken to extremes could obviously be a problem for both
parties.

>I assume that current laws protecting minors from sexual imposition by
>adults regardless of gender preference would still apply.

Yes and no... a person could not be rightfully fired for being a pedophile 
if his company or local/state/federal policy was not to be fired on the 
basis of sexual orientation, BUT he could obviously be fired for being a
convicted criminal (if he was found guilty).  

Still, the mere fact that the person was a pedophile would be such of
a stigma that any team which they were in would be disrupted.  That in
itself could lead to a termination.  Drawing the homosexual parallel,
the same could be said, but the stigma is much less and the risk for
law suits greater.

>However, if
>pedophilia is a sexual orientation, how far would the rights of the
>pedophile extend.

It would have to be proven in a court of law that for this person,
pedophillia is indeed a sexual orientation AND (big and) it would have
to be proven that the intent of the law is to protect pedophiles.

BTW, what was your side of the argument?

-- 
|Tom Barrett (TDBear), Sr. Engineer|tom.barrett@amd.com|v:512-462-6856 |
|AMD PCD MS-520 | 5900 E. Ben White|Austin, TX  78741  |f:512-462-5155 |
|"No is yes, And we're all free" ---Tracy Chapman, "Why?"              |
|My views are my own and may not be the same as the company of origin  |
Newsgroups: soc.motss