From: olw7845@rigel.tamu.edu (Zeke E. Pez)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Re: The Zekester gets Serious, Maybe...
Date: 21 Dec 1992 22:47 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: rigel.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Dec22.004930.16882@netcom.com>, robj@netcom.com (Rob Jellinghaus) writes...
>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.

The issues facing Jews, Blacks, and Gays are different. How bout' a specific
example:
Jews and Muslims are killing each other due to religious intolerance and
biases that lead to discrimination resulting in years upon years of conflict.

Where is the Homosexual Jew and Heterosexual Muslim or vice versa coming into
the picture??
I guess the Homosexual fight for religious tolerance with respect Jews and
Muslims is not in the daily news, huh, Rob is it...
Is the Jewish Homosexual conflicts of Hetero Palestinians (or vice versa)
the real struggle against sexual discrimination ???

The issues facing Jews is religion, The issues facing HOMO's is sexual
orientation. I cannot see the equivalence (religion)!=(sexual orientation).

If what you are trying to say is that discrimination is discrimination,
then at least you agree with me on that point.  Discrimination IS
Discrimination whether it is reverse discr. , racial discr., etc.


>>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-

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

Rob, you have only reinforced my notion that the phrase "Consenting Adults"
is a very gray area that adds to the vagueness of the PRO HOMO stance.
REread you own words mentioning grey areas of consent and adults.  I agree
that consenting mature adults is a less gray area with respect to HOMO's as
compared to Pedo's,Necro's, *beasto's*. The fact remains that the "Consenting
Adults is NOT clear cut!


You have finally stated what I need to hear.
See the above paragraphs as proof.

Hetero, Homo, Necros, *Beasto's*, Pedo's, and Bisexuals (sorry I failed to 
mention this earlier) are all _sexual orientations_.  It has also been said 
that these behaviours are inhereted (for the most part). Now when legislation
is passed to protect discrimination based on _sexual orientation_, It MUST
protect all of them including PEDOPHILIA.  Why is this so?
Because this behaviour is deemed inhereted.  The person cannot be expected to
hide his sexuality. If it is o.k. for the HOMO to galavant about screaming that
"GAY is O.K." , and some HETERO mouthing off that "HETERO is the way to go",
why should the PEDOPHILE or NECROPHILE be shut in their closet?
Just because the act of screwing children and dead folks may be an illegal
act, does not imply the right to discriminate against PEDOPHILES and
NECROPHILES.  They are people too! Now should it be legal to discriminate
against a self proclaimed PEDOPHILE or NECROPHILE even if they are not 
sexually active (or even if they are)?

If your answer is yes, it is o.k. to discriminate against them because they
have partners that cannot consent, then you are a hipocrite because we
have already aggreed that discrimination is discrimination.

If your answer is no, it is not o.k. to discriminate against them because they
have partners that cannot consent, then you are at least consistent with
our agreement that discrimination is discrimination. But you will strike a blow
to the notion that "consenting adults" is a valid qualifier for the HOMO's.

If your answer is "another grey area" is at hand, then you have brought doubt
upon the whole argument of protection of sexual orientation since the driving
force behind the HOMO stance is the fact that sexual orientation is a clear
cut non-grey area that people must realize.

So the question now stands:

If anti-discrimination legislation is sought for the protection of 
_sexual orientation_, should all _sexual orientations_ be included or
should some _sexual orientations_ be left out thus resulting in a form
discrimination?

By the way, NO ONE has submitted an adequate definition of an ADULT.
What is the matter, can the PRO HOMO factions not justify their own
qualifier of what an ADULT is?

---------------------------------------------------------------
|The Zekester, PRO HETERO and proud of it!!                   |
|       **********         They call me homophobic,           |
|    ***          ***      They call me bigotted,             |
|  **<-------------****    They call me close-minded,         |
| **  \          **** **   They call me intolerant,           |
|**    \      ****/    **  They blame me for their problems,  |
|**     \  ****  /     **  They cannot tolerate me,           |
|**     ****    /      **  They cannot respect me,            |
| ** **** \    /      **   They do not know me,               |
|  ****    \  /      **         yet they judge me.            |
|    ***    \/   ***                                          |
|       **********         They must be heterophobes!!        |
---------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality