From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Raises a new question (Re: Is sexuality chosen or inborn?)
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 20:23:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.195223.5907@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>In article <1993Jan1.183617.8618@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>>    Yes, many do.  This form of discrimination, of course, pales beside
>>>societal marraige, adoption, etc. laws - those are the more important
>>>discriminatory issues, imho.
>>
>>	This is not a form of discrimination.
>
>    What do you call it?


	I call it non-presence.  See my sarcastic post to the idiot who
	was promoting the rainbow curriculum.  There is no "diversity"
	in the curriculum, there is very planned inclusion and exclusion.


>>>    Well, just when you think you've heard it all...so people object to gays
>>>because their sexual practices are mutually non-consensual, since they are
>>>too mentally ill to give consent?  Incredible.
>>
>>	I'm sure you've heard it before.
>
>    Nope.  Never.  And I exchange ideas with lots of 'phobes.  I'd be
>interested to know if anyone else reading this newsgroup has ever heard
>this amazing assertion before.


	You've never heard that gays are mentally ill?  My argument is 
	merely the logical extension of that argument:  the mentally
	ill are not considered able to give informed consent.

	If it helps, I've heard it a number of times from the 
	fundies in my area (MD/Va/DC)



>>	Clever the way you cut out the first half of that point.
>>	
>>	"There are some people who believe that children
>>	can, indeed, give consent.  These people happen
>>	to be the same people interested inraping children.
>>	Likewise, "
>
>    I cut it out because I agree, and saw no reason to waste bandwidth.
>
>[bad example deleted]
>>	Actually, that's not a good example.  A better example is the
>>	case that is being tried now involving 8 adolescents and 
>>	an 18 year old (age uncertain) retarded girl with the approximate
>>	intellect of an eight year old.  Now, this girl is of age,
>>	but they are aiming that she was unable to give _consent_
>>	because she does not have the mental capacity to do so.  
>
>    I think this is a terrible example.  It implies that gays are
>equivalent mentally to a retarded person.  I'm sure you know that this
>isn't the case.


	No, it implies that, if we consider gays mentally ill 
	(perhaps not you or I, but the vast majority) then we
	cannot allow them to determine their own health.



>>	You cannot answer a point with a flame, Howard.  It doesn't
>>	work.  If you cannot address the point, concede that you are
>>	unable, or don't respond.  Usenet gets enough flames without
>>	the weak-minded trying to hid behind them because they are
>>	unable to reply intelligently.
>
>    Some points are so irrational that they deserve no response.  You seem
>to be more adept than most at keep us in good supply.


	At least I acknowledge that there are--can be--views other
	than my own.  


>>	In case it makes you feel better, I do not hold these views
>>	myself.  But the vast majority of the worlds population does,
>>	in fact, hold these views or views quite similar.  Just because
>
>    I don't agree at all.  Your dumb "mental illness" model is new to me,
>and I've been around the block many times.


	Please.  I've heard it so many times it's boring.  The 
	gays are mentally ill perverts argument is probably as old
	as the "gays are servents of satan" argument.  If you haven't
	heard it before, you've been hiding in some dark cave somewhere.



>>	you don't agree with them doesn't make them wrong--your
>>	opinions do not outweigh anyone else's, and in this case,
>>	it's *all* opinion.
>
>    The mental health of the average gay person is not a matter of opinion.


	It certainly is.  The mental health of the average minister is, too,
	and the average woman, man, teenager.  to pretend otherwise is
	ludicrious.

-- 
	Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.

         ---  boycott == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
		   	     Pain teaches.