NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/soc/motss/58831

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-28 | 3.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!meaddata!ptb
From: [e-mail] (Patrick Bell)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Pedophilia as sexual orientation
Date: 28 Jan 1993 17:26:02 GMT
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Lines: 62
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: echo.meaddata.com

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Thomas D. Barrett) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Wasson) writes:

|> >There is a discussion on our company's local net concerning pedophilia as
|> >one type of sexual orientation.
|>
|> What an interesting internal forum you have :)

Yeah, I'm (me, Patrick Bell) the only openly Gay person on it.  Everytime
a fundie argues homosexuality = pedophilia I fell compelled to respond,
and we get into a Gay thread, which most of the readers (men) follow
intently yet pretend they don't.  Mark Wasson is Straight, for all I
know (he doesn't set my Gaydar off a bit), but seems kinda' fascinated
by homosexuality, as he seems kinda' fascinated by a lot of different
threads.

So far I've been able to have them understand that "Gay" is a cultural
identity irrespective of sexual activity, and that "Gay" does not mean
having homosex, which they assume means "anal sex".  That's about it.

What I've learned is that the Christian Right is redefining "sexual
orientation" to include various negative/illegal activities, not just
as the basis of sexual attraction.  Politically, this could be very
bad for Gays, as it makes makes the term "sexual orientation" even
less clear, and we're still trying to get people to drop the term
"sexual preference" because it implies choice -- but so many people
*still* use it.

[stuff deleted]

|> Yes and no... a person could not be rightfully fired for being a pedophile
|> if his company or local/state/federal policy was not to be fired on the
|> basis of sexual orientation, BUT he could obviously be fired for being a
|> convicted criminal (if he was found guilty).

Lemme' see, you're saying that a pedophile's sexual orientation has no bearing
on his ability to be fired -- what matters is his conviction. You're *not*
saying that a Gay pedophile is protected from firing because he's Gay and
a Straight pedophile can be fired at will, providing there is a sexual
orientation clause.  Right?  Otherwise, I think you're wrong.

|> BTW, what was your side of the argument?

My arguments (me, Patrick Bell) were that whenever anyone sees the word
"homosexual" associated with "pedophilia", they are looking at a
persuasive definition defined by the Christian Right (which I defined,
as to not stereotype all Christians) and that the ultimate goal of this
rhetoric is not the protection of children, but to ultimately turn the
United States, and then the world into a fundamentalist Christian theocracy.

I talked a bit about Gay culture vs. the concept of homosexuality, and gave
arguments to support that given the statistics on Gay and Straight pedophiles,
and that many gay-oriented  pedophiles identify themselves as Straight,
that kids in daycare (the topic that sparked this thread) are
statistically safer with *openly* Gay employees than someone
who says they're Straight.

--
Patrick Bell           |         All viewpoints          |        [phone]
Mead Data Central, Inc.|       expressed are mine        |      [e-mail]
P.O. Box 933           |       and not that of my        |...!uunet!meaddata!ptb
Dayton, OH 45401       |      employer.  So there!       |