From: owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,ba.motss
Subject: The queer-baiting articles can stop NOW!
Date: 16 Sep 92 00:01:18 GMT
Followup-To: poster

In article <12286@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> #pentangl@spdcc.com (Scott Moir) writes:
> # So why are you taking it out on us? I don't think anyone, regardless
> # of gender or orientation, thinks that child abuse is good. There are
> # some pedophiliacs out there on -both- sides. Why does your crusade
> # get focused on gays?

> Because the gay community won't shun pedophiliacs like NAMBLA.
> The straight community shuns pedophiliacs with great vengeance.

I'm not gonna let you get away with that Clayton.
In the first place if you had accepted my gracious invitation to
attend this years SF Gay Freedom Parade, you would have seen the Gay 
community shun NAMBLA with overwhelming zeal. You could have participated
in the process yourself, directly targetting them . You could have photo
graphed them for your family album.

The reality is that NAMBLA lurks within the Gay Liberation movement,
claiming its agenda as an age of consent issue, while soft peddling its
other agenda as a support group for pedophiles.  ( what the hell is a
pedophiliac Clayton, is that a hemophiliac pedophile?)

NAMBLA has never enjoyed support from the Gay community
as a whole, they  keep a pretty low profile because there *IS*
opposition to them and they prefer to stay out of sight. There has never
been an occasion that any NAMBLA contingent has marched in any parade 
where there has not been significant opposition to them, that there is
clear rejection of their organisation and its aims  by other Gay Liberation
organisations is a fact, whether you choose to see it or not.

It is only the political climate of left wing rhetoric that has allowed
these people any refuge at all. The biggest irony is that some of the most
repressive regimes on our planet in regard to sexual freedom have been 
leftist states. My own experiment with left wing political organisations
(socialist workers party, Vietnam Vets against the War, SDS -NYC,~1970-71)
left me convinced that the hard core communists working towards the
goal of socialism in our country would say anything, do anything, to elicit
support from anyone, to further their own agenda. The current era
has shown clearly that the radical right is no different in this regard,
and when you boil it all down what you have is primates fighting for power
and damn the issues.

> A person who showed up AT any straight parade carrying a sign for
> something equivalent to NAMBLA would not only be ejected from the
> parade, but perhaps from this world.

Next time there is a parade in Stockton lets go hold up signs demanding
a change to Californias Assault weapons laws, Clayton, lets see what happens.

But does this mean that you advocate murder, does this mean that you
condone mob rule - lynch mob mentality? what about the rule of law
Clayton.  Is carrying the sign a crime? Do you advocate the execution
of people for the expression of ideas?

As you should know, every political/social issue has many levels.
It's not unusual for legitimate issues, like gun ownership and age of
consent laws to be used as platforms to masquerade less noble intentions.
Career criminals and crack dealers benefit from the political action of the
gun lobby, pedophiles benefit from the political action of those who
wish to standardize our age of consent laws. 

Another point is that the politically naive fools who show up at parades
carrying banners for NAMBLA are not the ones who present a danger to
society. I would think that parents who fear that pedophiles reside in every
shadowed corner would prefer to have NAMBLA marching openly in the light of
day, what better way to make them identifiable, and therefore accountable.

Remember when that local TV station sent a camera into a NAMBLA meeting,
remember the ones who scurried away like cockroaches . Those are the ones
we need to worry about Clayton.

> # I don't really think that you 
> # believe that heterosexual pedophila is okay.
> # The only difference is that there happens to be an organization on the gay
> # side. Not everyone likes it, but it is there regardless. There is nothing
> # that we or anyone else can do about its existence. 
 
> How back shunning it?  

You really should have been there Clayton, you would have seen the shunning.

> How back telling them they aren't to march
> in gay parades?

Lets say that in this case it has been left to market forces to decide the
issue. I don't suppose you have much experience with the nightmare of 
trying to get *common sense* to prevail in a consensus decision making
situation, but marginal organisations like NAMBLA usually manage to 
find some faction to champion their right to exist on purely political
grounds. organisations like the KKK, WAR, JDL, NAMBLA, etc.. exploit the 
political correctness traits of theorists  when it suits their need.

I really don't think we will see NAMBLA in the parade again, and if they do
they should change their name to North American Masochists/boy love
association.  Why *allow* them to march if they really want to run the
gauntlet again?.. because it brings the issue to the surface and alows
the rest of the community to face the situation squarely.


> Great.  You know how much crap I received from homosexuals arguing
> that NAMBLA is not really that bad?

A gross oversimplification Clayton. From what I see you receive a lot of
crap for the way you make your statements, you consistently bait queers
about this issue and then take all the opposition to your presentation as 
evidence of support for NAMBLA. There is one.. count 'em .. one.. NAMBLA
member who has posted explicit defense for NAMBLA in total. There have 
been a few men who have posted opinions based on their own boyhood 
experiences of sexual contact with adults. Of those few some have expressed
that their experiences where positive, some have detailed genuine abuse
which resulted in harm. There have been some who argue on a purely
political/theoretical basis regarding the constitutional right to assemble.


As you may recall, when you started ranting about this issue a few years
back, I was one who felt that the first amendment rights of NAMBLA members
and NAMBLA as an organisation where valid. I still do. However, that does
not constitute support for the organisation, its members, their aims -
stated or unstated-. I feel the same way about the KKK, or WAR, or
the Identity Christian movement.
This is not the same as saying that these organisations are *not really
that bad* . My personal opinion about all these groups and NAMBLA too is
that they are on a par with pond scum. 
From the limited personal communication you and I have shared, I think
that you are capable of understanding that unshakable support for the
first ammendment is no different than unshakable support for the right to
bear arms. As one who has witnessed the anti-gun lobby chipping away at
that issue, I find it difficult to believe that you don't see the danger
in chipping away at the right to assemble. 
I would have thought you to be a constitutionalist Clayton?



LUX ./. owen

--
D. Owen Rowley {uunet,fernwood,sun}!autodesk!owen

  " It will be a cold March 17th that I celebrate the imposition of
	Romes rule, on Pagan Ireland. Erin go ppphhhhhttttttt! "