From: robj@netcom.com (Rob Jellinghaus)
Subject: Re: The Zekester gets Serious, Maybe...
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:49:30 GMT

In article <21DEC199216443512@zeus.tamu.edu> olw7845@zeus.tamu.edu (Zeke E. Pez) writes:
>Discrimination is discrimination! Whether it is
>reverse discrimination or what ever.  But to equate anti-gay and anti-Jewish
>discrimination is wrong because the issues facing the Jews, Blacks, and 
>HOMO's is different.  The common goal is to overcome the barriers of 
>discrimination but does that struggle not exist for other groups such as but 
>not limited to Muslems, Latino's, Asians, etc.

You contradict yourself: you say the issues facing jews, blacks, and
gays are different, but then you say the common goal is to overcome
discrimination.  Sounds to me like you are agreeing with me, Zeke:
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a barrier that
should be overcome, just like discrimination on the basis of race or
religion.

Also, what is your point about "does that struggle not exist..."?
The groups you mention are all covered by statutes outlawing
discrimination on the basis of race.

>According to PRO HOMO rhetoric (not your bigotted, hate mongor type of 
>PRO HOMO, ROB), 

Where have I been bigoted or hate-mongering?  Please quote any
statements I have made that are either.

>If a an ADULT dog runs up to you and mount's your leg and tries to *do* you.
>It seems this dog is requesting consent for sexual (in the only way it knows
>how) behaviour and if you do consent (assuming you are an adult) and help
>FIDO finish the job.  Is this not sexual consent among ADULTS?? Should it not
>be protected by law?

Some people think so.  Some others disagree.  The issue is whether
animals can give consent.  If you believe they can, then yes,
bestiality should not be illegal--although this raises the problem
of determining whether the animal really has consented or not.  If
you believe animals cannot give consent, then practicing bestiality
is legally equivalent to rape.

And no matter what your position, this argument is irrelevant to
homosexuality, because there is NO question of whether consent is
possible between mature adults.  It is, and homosexuality is
perforce a protectable sexual orientation, both in principle and
in practice.

>If your lover (assuming he/she is an ADULT) by the power of attornet, WILL's 
>their corpse PRE-MORTUM to you(assuming you are an adult) so that you may 
>engage in sexual activity with the body.  Is this not sexual consent among 
>ADULTS?? Should it not be protected by law?

This is another gray area, where some places state that sex with
the dead is consensual, and others state that it is not.  And
again, this has nothing to do with homosexuality, where there is no
doubt that the behavior is mutually consensual.

>What is your definition of an ADULT?

A third gray area.  The question here is whether children can give
consent.  Some people say yes, most say no.  And once again, you
are attempting to confuse the issue by comparing pedophilia and
homosexuality; homosexuality is clearly and completely a mutually
consensual behavior.

Pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality are all sexual orientations,
just like heterosexuality and homosexuality.  A sexual orientation is
an inherent inclination to participate in a particular kind of sexual
behavior.  Acting on this inclination is fine if your partner
consents.  In the case of pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, and
rape, the partner does not (or legally cannot) consent, which is why
these behaviors are illegal, and why heterosexuality and homosexuality
are not.

Far from making the issues more vague, the notion of consent cuts to
the core of the discussion.  You seem to think that merely raising the
notion of consent will immediately mire us in a morally ambiguous
swamp.  Wrong!  No matter whether you think (kids, corpses, animals)
can consent or not, there is no question that gay adults _can_.

>By my above statements can you not see your ramifications, ROBBIEpoo ?? 

Yes.  Heterosexuality and homosexuality are fine; bestiality,
necrophilia, and pedophilia are probably not (though the debate
continues).  Seem like some fine ramifications to me.

>And By the way, why hasn't any one asked my to state my true and honest
>opinion about GAY's??

Every time you post your obnoxious .sig, every time you screech about
the "hate-mongering PRO HOMOs", every time you sling insults like
"ZEKE@homo.is.the.way.to.go.to.get.a.piece.of.pucker.hole" (even
though straight women into anal sex outnumber gay men into anal sex by
FIVE TO ONE), you _are_ stating your opinion about gays.  I couldn't
care less whether it's your "true and honest" opinion.  You are acting
like a bigoted cretin, which is a stupid enough thing to do that I
can easily believe you're really like that.

I prefer to act as honestly as I can, which includes getting angry at
people like you--angry enough to spend a lotta time responding to you.

-- 
Rob Jellinghaus    |  "Next time you see a lie being spread or a bad 
robj@netcom.com    |   decision being made out of sheer ignorance,
robj@xanadu.com    |   pause, and think of hypertext."
uunet!netcom!robj  |       -- K. Eric Drexler, _Engines of Creation_