From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Gay Child Molesters (Re: Youth Info Needed)
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 12:39:37 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc

As quoted from <1992Dec21.080604.26627@Princeton.EDU> by niepornt@fish.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent):

> Well, calling it "self serving" is just bad political rhetoric, since
> ALL lobbies are self serving; it isn't something special about NAMBLA.
> 
There are degrees of self-serving.  Lobbying my congressman for a bill to
benefit my business is self-serving.  It doesn't REQUIRE tangible harm to
somebody else.  On the other hand, lobbying him to exclude Jews, Asian or
whomever I don't happen to care for, from the protection of the murder laws
is just a bit MORE self-serving and in a HARMFUL way.

> Furthermore, there *are* organized lobbies which argue for more rights
> for minors, though I'm sure driving isn't high on their list.

I wouldn't consider the being molested a right.

> I wouldn't swear to it, but from what I remember about the Libertarian
> Party platform, many of the laws discriminating against minors *would* 
> have to be altered or eliminated.

I'm really starting to get the idea that a couple of you think I'm somebody
else.  First somebody imputed to me an approval of molestation of FEMALE 
children, now you come out of left field with this Libertarian stuff.  Let me
state in no uncertain terms, I am NOT a Libertarian and have in fact been a
vocal critic of the Libertarian party for over ten years.  I honestly don't care
what the Libertarian position on ANYTHING is, other than as a topic of idle
conversation.

> Nevertheless, you immediately set up a straw man, since no one is
> arguing for getting children to do things "before they're ready."
> They're arguing that many people ARE ready before 18, and to set 18 as
> an arbitrary cutoff is, well, arbitrary.
> 
And who determines IF they're ready.  An honest appraisal would result in the
conclusion that NAMBLA doesn't think there's a time when the child ISN'T 
"ready". 

ALL law is arbitrary.  One only pick an issue and ask "why" enough times to 
figure that out.  That doesn't mean that we can't HAVE laws.

> >As you well know (or should) the hallmarks of good law (indeed western law in
> >general) are specificity, predictability, and comprehensibility.  What you
> >(and NAMBLA) attempt to do is to so diminish (or eliminate) these qualities
> >that a molester can "finesse" the legal system, or at least paralyze it so as
> >to be able to molest with impunity.  
> 
> Not in my book.  The hallmarks of good law in MY book are rationality,
> fairness, and respect for individual liberties. 
> 
I suggest you go for a rewrite.  How "fair" is a law if you can't ever tell 
what constitutes an offense under it, and whether you're in fact violating it?

> Is it rational to forbid a 20 year old to drink?  Is it fair?  It's 
> certainly specific, predictable, and comprehensible, so by your standard, it
> should be allowed.  Of course, not allowing women to vote also is
> specific, predictable, and comprehensible.

Yes, it IS rational to forbid a 20 year old to drink.  You may disagree with
it, but there's nothing so outrageous about it which would make it irrational.
Speaking of strawmen, 20 year olds become 21 year olds and become legally able
to drink.  Women don't become men.  Gender based laws are MUCH less easy to 
prove rational... or do you disagree that gender discrimination is usually
invidious?

> >> Also explain why the ages for these various things are different in
> >> some other countries, with no apparent harm.
>  
> >Explain to me why other countries allow indefinite imprisonment without
> >trial, torture, and rape of female prisoners.
> 
> I really don't think he's talking about China, here.  I think he's
> referring to places like the Netherlands, though I can't be sure.  And
> he did say "with no apparent harm."
> 
Neither was I.  I was talking about Iran.  How do we determine "harm".  I do
note that at least at one time, the Netherlands was a center for the child
pornography trade.  Maybe we're talking about "self-serving" laws here....

Besides, I doubt that the Iranians think that their legal system does "harm"...

> I doubt that the countries *you're* talking about allow these things
> with no apparent harm.
> 
It depends upon how you define "harm".  A mullah might see such things as 
quite beneficial as they discourage "ungodliness" and challenges to the
"rule of the faithful".

> >I find it inconceivable that an alternative is possible which would protect
> >the interests of the child.  That is of course NOT the goal of NAMBLA.  Their
> >SOLE interest is the URGES of child molesters.  I have NO difficulty choosing
> >between the interests of children and the foul desires of rapists.
> 
> Of course not.  After all, there is only One True Way (tm), and if
> anyone deviates from it, they must be a child molester.  

Well if somebody wants to ELIMINATE age of consent laws, that's certainly the
way to bet.

> "I mean, like rape law.  The only way to abolish rape is to make sex
> illegal.  Otherwise we get those fuzzy cases where the question of consent 
> comes up.  What if the man gives the woman a lollipop and tricks her
> into having sex?  If you don't forbid all sex, you must be a rapist."
> 
Women are adult autonomous beings, presumed to be responsible for themselves.
At least that's what THEY tell me.  I presume, based on evidence, that they
are indeed usually able to make competant decisions for themselves.  The entire
point of sexual exploitation of children is to have a helpless or at least
weaker victim.  By this comparison, you apparently view women as incompetant
to make significant decisions for themselves, indeed as "childlike".  Perhaps
you might wish to seek a position in the Iranian government.  You have the 
proper attitude toward women....

> Are you really saying there is no possible way to write a law which only
> allows consensual sex without forbidding all sex?   The "bribe the kid with 
> a lollipop" analogy falls apart, since it is quite possible to acknowledge
> that a child can be unable to consent without setting an arbitrary age
> for that test.
> 
A law which protects AFTER THE FACT... SOMETIMES, doesn't.  How about a rape
law which allows for imputation of consent, even when it's obvious that the
woman DIDN'T consent?  Forced sex, is forced sex.  The color of the skirt or
the length of the hem is irrelevant.

> Maybe that isn't the best *policy* because it might be unworkable in
> practice, but that doesn't mean that anyone who thinks it might be
> correct is a rapist/child molester.
> 
So, good law is also "unworkable in practice"?  Hey, how about a law making it
illegal to be "mean" while we're at it...?

> I mean, that *is* the way they do it for adults, you know.  There are
> certain people, who, because of mental retardation and the like, are
> unable to consent.  But the law doesn't forbid having sex to protect
> these people; it simply forbids having sex with those who cannot consent
> as well as those who don't.
> 
In fact, such people ARE adults and apart from coercion, there usually AREN'T
any sanctions regarding having sex with them.   Some people disagree with
this, but the fact is that at least chronologically, they ARE adults.  The
presumption of competance in such cases lies with them.  Such people have to
be determined to BE incompetant before their rights can be abridged.  That
protects their rights as ADULTS.  Children are presumed to be incompetant 
unless age or special circumstances dictate otherwise.  That protects their
rights as CHILDREN.  NAMBLA has NO interest in the RIGHTS of children.  Its
only interest is the EXPLOITATION of children.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------