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 05:42:10 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:

>In article <Bxny3z.Aww@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) 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"?
>>

>>The term itself is, of course, a value judgement that NAMBLA would object
>>to.  If Hillary Clinton and our lawyer elite succeeds in making child
>>divorce legal, as they have made great strides towards, how long will it
>>be before a "mature" 12-year old decides to divorce his(her) parents and move
>>in with his(her) 34-year old molester?  When it is legal, who can complain?  
>>Will *you* complain? 
>>

>Yes- and Bush and his rightwing cohorts will leave all of these childern where
>they belong- mentally and physically abused by 'bad' parents. I think this 
>cases simply makes a statement- child do not need to be left in abusive situations
>and if the social structure cannot protect them, then maybe the judicial branch
>can.

As I recall, the Florida (?) child divorce case did not involve abuse, nor
have I heard of any child divorce case which did.  Abuse is supposed to
be handled by several existing government agencies.  There are already
several laws against child abuse on the books.  Your attacks on "Bush and
his rightwing cohorts" are senseless, since they imply that child divorces
is the only solution under a "right-wing" government.

>>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.  
>>

>Yes and I remember that African-Americans could not use the same restroom or
>drinking fountains or schools as white people did. 

Non sequitor.  Proscribing homosexual activity does not pass any legal, moral,
or other judgement on any person.  It merely bans an activity.  People are
more than the sum of their actions, and no person is so limited that 
proscribing an activity denies their humanity.  I realize that many self-
labelled "homosexuals" would attempt to define themselves entirely in 
terms of their sexuality, but that is merely a sign of their mental 
instability.

>Your argument process lacks
>the ability to construct anything meaningful. Oh it is just too damn bad that
>society says you can't be or do this.  Boy I would love to know if you ever
>have childern- and one of them turns out to be gay and when they go up and
>accept themselves, someone comes along and says 'You are trash, evil, garbage
>and don't deserve to live'- then they kill themselves.  Would you be happy???
>You great society will have done its duty... right?

The situation you describe would, of course, be reprehensible.  However,
if society said to my son/daughter "The action you have taken is wrong
and detrimental to society" I would have no choice but to agree.  I love
my children, but that love requires me to point out wrong action.

>>Steve Kellmeyer
>>-- 
>>
>>Steve Kellmeyer 
>>kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu

>So what is your point Oh Great One!  You make the statement that one of the
>two previous posters is trying to make a superior judgement- what do you call your
>statement above- 'There is action which,no matter how pleasant it may be to
>the actor(s) involved, should not be allowed in a society.'

>Therefore how do you get off saying that one is making a statement about a 
>superior judgement.

My point is that the gay person can no more attack the straight person for
attempting to outlaw homosexuality than a child molester can attack both
for outlawing child molestation.

>The point is that gay people are here, have been here, and probably will be.  If
>two adults decide that they want to be together, then there is nothing morally
>wrong with that.  It all lies within the eye of the beholder. I could come up 
>with list of things that 'straight' people indulge in and should possibly be
>outlawed...

You certainly could.  You would be wrong, but the list could easily be 
constructed.

>Now let's get one thing very clear-

>There is no relation between a child molestor and a gay person, unless they happen
>to be a child molestor.  There is no relationship between a child molestor and
>a straight person, unless they happen to be a child molestor.  You see everyone is
>who they are, if they choose to do things which are out of bounds that is no
>reflection on whether they are gay, straight, bi, or asexual.

Oh, please, what gives you the right to label the act "molestation"?  You've
just said morality is in the eye of the beholder.  You've said there is
no right or wrong.  Child molestation, by your definition, cannot possibly
be attacked as wrong - it is simply a different way to live one's life.
If a 12-year old adult wants to have sex with a 35-year old adult, who are
you to say it's wrong, hmmmmm?

>Society has held many beliefs that were and are wrong.  We need only use a few
>examples that point to groups of people that have been treated incorrectly because
>of their religion or skin color or politics. 


>It takes time to bring new ideas into systems that are very rigid in the socialization
>process.  Look at the Church of England- they are now considering the entry of
>women as priest, and why shouldn't they- do men have some corner on the God Market?

>Get with it, start thinking for yourself, you probably know gay people right now
>and don't even know it.  Maybe they're even close friends.

I know several gay people.  I know several people who have used illegal
drugs.  I know several people who stole things.  I know people who have
molested children.  I know people who lie.  All of them are, or can be,
good people when they want to be.  Their actions are detrimental to 
society, however, and when the occasion has risen, I have let them know
that.  People are not the sum of their actions.  Society judges action,
as do I.  Neither society nor I have the right to judge the PERSON.
The distinction between action and entity is an important one.  Learn it.

Steve Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc