From: robj@netcom.com (Rob Jellinghaus)
Subject: Re: Re: The Zekester gets Serious, Maybe...
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:51:59 GMT

Plenty of other people (Jesse, Tim, Elf) have already said the right
stuff about this, but what the hey.

In article <21DEC199222470145@rigel.tamu.edu> olw7845@rigel.tamu.edu (Zeke E. Pez) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.004930.16882@netcom.com>, robj@netcom.com (Rob Jellinghaus) writes...
>>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??

What are you talking about?  If you're asking whether there are gays
struggling against sexual discrimination in the middle east, the answer
is yes.  There are parts of the world where being gay is a capital
crime.  (In the former USSR gays were routinely imprisoned in work
camps.)  But we seem to agree on the essential point:  discrimination
is discrimination.

I apologize, by the way; I actually did ask you "why racial discrim-
ination and sexual discrimination are equivalent".  This was a bogus
question on my part.  They are not equivalent, but they are directly
comparable, and are both wrong for the same reasons.

>>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_.
>
>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!

Sure it is.  Whatever the locality defines as "adult" in the legal code
is the definition of adult in that locality.  Where is the vagueness
in what I am saying?  Individuals who are legal adults can consent.
There does not need to be one universal definition of a "legal adult"
for this to be the case.

>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 they are sexually active, they are almost certainly breaking the law.
As Elf has pointed out, people who break the law are legally discrimi-
nated against.  If they are not sexually active, why would it be an
issue?

There are organizations (NAMBLA) dedicated to changing the laws about
age of consent and so forth.  These organizations have a legal right
to exist.  What is your point?

>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.

Why, exactly?  In what way does opposing discrimination on the basis
of sexual orientation imply an ambiguity about whether the people
involved can legally consent? 

>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?

NO ONE can agree on exactly when "adulthood" starts.  Different nations
around the world have different definitions of adulthood.  This has
nothing to do with homosexuality versus heterosexuality.  Why is it
up to the "PRO HOMOs" (damn if I know who _they_ are) to define ADULT?
What is the "PRO HETERO" definition, Zeke?  And why the fuck does it
matter?

-- 
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_
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:8590 soc.motss:54216