From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Why Excluding Pedophiles Was A Painful Decision for Oregon Homosexual Activists
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:52:27 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <oijc3j0@fido.asd.sgi.com>, dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
> In article <11737@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >David Duke has been as vigorously shunned as anyone can be.
> 
> Except that lots of republicans voted for him.  In fact, many more people
> voted for him than support NAMBLA.

In Louisiana -- where he was running against an obviously corrupt
Democrat.  It was a choice between a racist, and a crook.  What a
choice!  (I wouldn't have voted at all, rather than vote for one
or the other -- but the news media insist that we should get out and
vote, regardless).

> ># No, I would not.  I recognize fringe groups for what they are.  Also,
> ># the republican party is much more homogenous that the gay "community".
> >
> >HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> 
> You know nothing about what you are saying clayton.  There is no "gay
> community".  We are a group of people who have only one thing in common,
> we all are homosexuals.  There is nothing else that we have in common. 

Except that you insist on being one community for purposes of political
agitation for antidiscrimination laws.

> >I heard a lot of whining, but I've seen no refutation of the fact
> >that NAMBLA funded an orphanage in Thailand in order to gain access
> >to prepubescent boys.  I've seen no refutation that many of the
> >current members of NAMBLA have ben convicted of charges involving
> >boys as young as 5.
> 
> Those were all lies.  There is a refutation in the magazine "Frighten the
> Horses"  Someone is typing it in as we speak.  Of course, you are going
> to say that a refutation of these "facts" is support for NAMBLA.  Is there
> any way we can say these things were wrong that would please you?

You expect me to believe that a gay positive TV station in San Francisco
would intentionally lie in order to make the gay community look bad?

> >I don't know how much support NAMBLA has in the gay community.  I know
> >that it has enough that it is apparently a major issue when the 
> >decision is made whether to exclude NAMBLA or not.  This hardly sounds
> >like a minor faction.
> 
> You are hypothesizing without facts.  The only reason the NAMBLA topic
> keeps coming up is that you keep bringing it up.  Other than that, the only
> time most homosexuals think about them is when they are throwing things
> at them and booing them in gay pride parades.
> 
> FWA

Let me share with you a posting from a homosexual activist in Oregon.  
This may show that the problem is considerably more severe than
Mr. Dauber would like the straight community to believe:

$ In Portland, we've been dealing with the whole paedophilia issue
$ recently in the lesbigay community. A group of hatemongers are trying
$ to amend the Oregon constitution to read "Pedophilia, sadism,
$ masochism, homosexuality, bestiality and necrophilia are recognized by
$ this state as abnormal, unnatural and perverse conduct." This will be
$ a public referendum campaign.
$ 
$ The issue has come up in the "No on Hate" committee, a lesbigay
$ community organizing effort to fight the amendment. I've been to two
$ public meetings where the issue has come up. In the first meeting, the
$ subject of S&M came up and from there someone said "I dont want to
$ support paedophilia" and from there, a lot of paedophile bashing. At
$ some point a person I've known from Queer Nation (who I will call
$ "John", like on the QN mailing list) spoke up and said he was a boy
$ lover, and resented the bashing. The meeting quickly degenerated into
$ shouting, and nothing was resolved, but a lot of people were upset.
$ 
$ At the next meeting the issue of paedophilia was brought up
$ specifically on the floor, and a resolution was passed along the lines
$ of "No on Hate will not knowingly work for paedophile causes, or work
$ with people advocating paedophilia" or something similar. Paedophilia
$ in this case is legally defined, which unfortunately in Oregon is
$ anyone under 18 having sex.
$ 
$ On the other side of the fence, Queer Nation / Portland has had to
$ deal with this also in that "John" is (was) a member of QN/PDX. Many
$ of the people at the No on Hate meeting were at the QN meeting, and
$ were intimidated by his presence at QN. (he is very threatening -
$ shouting, etc.) Again we had one meeting that was relatively unuseful, and
$ then a second in which QN made two statements:
$ 
$ "Consistent with Queer Nation's opposition to all forms of oppressive
$ behaviour, Queer Nation condemns the sexual, physical, and emotional
$ abuse of anyone. We will insure the safety of all Queer Nationals by
$ not permitting people who engage in or advocate for said behaviours
$ into our activities."
$ 
$ "Because of <John>'s past behaviour which threatened other members of
$ the group and threatened group stability, his presence at Queer Nation
$ meetings will not be permitted."
$ 
$ So, QN/PDX keeps with its "radical fringe"ness by not saying
$ paedophilia was bad. We think sexual abuse is bad, but have made no
$ attempt to define sexual abuse with respect to age of participants
$ (nor is one wanted). And, we got "John" out because of the threat he
$ posed to the group, not because of his sexual behaviour but because of
$ his behaviour in meetings, with respect to shouting, etc.
$ 
$ I've got about 100k of stuff archived from discussions on the QN
$ mailing list if people are more interested in this topic. It was a
$ painful process for us.

Think about it -- the Oregon Citizens Alliance tries to amend the
Oregon Constitution to declare homosexuality a perversion, a group
of homosexuals in opposition to them try to form a political 
organization to persuade the people of Oregon that homosexuality
is NOT a perversion, and the decision about whether pedophiles are
an acceptable part of the political coalition is rough and 
difficult.  Can you imagine how OCA would have used the presence
of pedophiles in the organization?  I would say the evidence is
strong that pedophilia remains a serious issue within the 
homosexual community.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
I can make myself popular on USENET again -- all I have to say is that I'm not 
disturbed by the support for North American Man-Boy Love Association in the 
homosexual community.  Being popular at a child's expense isn't worth it.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush