Re: re: Disurbing article

February 13, 2004

In a message dated 2/13/04 4:20:27 PM Eastern Standard Time,

jaltak@... writes:

> Children are impressionable. And a child (yes, a teenager is still a child)

> is very impressionable. It is much easier to hand a child a " line " than an

> adult. You can't call it consent if they were conned into it. Even if there

> was no force.

I agree to an extent, but that's not the issue. & amp;nbsp; The issue isn't

whether

in *some* cases it constitutes de facto rape, or even in *most* cases. & amp;nbsp;

The issue is whether it is " by definition " rape, which is simply preposterous,

because there is no guarantee of emotional maturity in a 20-year-old, and

there is no guarantee of a lack of emotional maturity in a teenager. & amp;nbsp;

Furthermore, by Lierre's definition, a 20 year old having sex with a 19 year old

would be necessarily rape, regardless of any circumstances. & amp;nbsp; That

doesn't

seem absurd?

Chris

February 13, 2004

> Judith Alta wrote:

> > I know a 15 year old girl that would put many adults to shame, both in

> > maturity and intelligence. But mental capacity does not guarantee

> > maturity.

Berg wrote:

> Neither does age.

True, there are age cutoffs for various laws to separate childhood and

adulthood. Some never mature, grow up in some way.

Wanita

February 13, 2004

Even though I seemed the girl here at 15, didn't feel grown up till 28, just

gotten better since.

Wanita

> True. I newer grew up until I was past 40.

>

> Judith Alta

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Berg [mailto:bberg@...]

>

> Judith Alta wrote:

> > I know a 15 year old girl that would put many adults to shame, both in

> > maturity and intelligence. But mental capacity does not guarantee

> > maturity.

>

> Neither does age.

February 13, 2004

NAMBLA is political that's why you hear about them. I don't know of any

heterosexual pedophile groups that are political. But either way...it's

disgusting no matter who is doing it. How did this strain get started

anyway? Was it the gay marriage thing? It sure has taken a life of it's

own Both sides have valid points. That makes for a good discussion.

Re: re: Disurbing article

>> The problem is heterosexuals aren't trying to make sexual acts with young

children acceptable... <<

This is not true. There are organized pedophile organizations for men who

want to have sex with girls too. You can find some of them, as I did, by

doing a quick google search just now, listed here:

http://www.puellula.org/HFP/Links.html

There is a reason that NAMBLA gets so much attention, and that is because

anti-gay propganda keeps the spotlight on them, so it can continue to

demonize gay people. That fact is that NAMBLA is despised and outcast by

virtually all gay and lesbian people. The pathetic few sickos who comprise

NAMBLA love all the attention they get - it feeds their agenda perfectly to

be used in this way. They would have faded away long ago, otherwise.

Christie

February 13, 2004

Quoting Kayte Sisler <kayte@...>:

> NAMBLA is political that's why you hear about them. I don't know of any

> heterosexual pedophile groups that are political.

The reason that you've never heard of them is that no one can figure out how

to pronounce NAMGLA.

--

Berg

bberg@...

February 13, 2004

>> NAMBLA is political that's why you hear about them. <<

I understand the point you're trying to make, but I completely disagree that

" NAMBLA is political, that's why you hear about them. " You hear about NAMBLA not

because of NAMBLA, but because they are constantly being brought up in anti-gay

propaganda. Which does three things: It makes it easy to see gay men as a

community of child molestors instead of humans with rights, it keeps a

connection between homosexuality and child molestation in people's minds, and it

keeps NAMBLA itself in existence by giving them the notoriety they crave.

>> How did this strain get started

anyway? Was it the gay marriage thing? It sure has taken a life of it's

own Both sides have valid points. That makes for a good discussion. <<

I don't find the " side " that says that they should be able to get married but I

shouldn't to have a valid point at all. They may find it icky, but that's hardly

a legitimate basis to create a second class of citizenship and force me into it.

I also have been finding it rather infuriating to listen to all these people on

TV debating whether or not I should have the right to do what a drunk pimp and a

hooker can run off to do on ten minutes' aquaintance after meeting in a

crackhouse. But hey, everyone's viewpoint is valid, right?

For the record I completely agree with whoever said that the government should

get out of the marriage business entirely. It's the only way to settle this. But

I still say the only real basis to objecting to giving me equal rights to

marriage is that people think it's icky. I wrote an article about this four

years ago, still rings true for me now:

Same-sex Marriage:

The Rule of Law vs. the " Ick Factor

by Christie

Tim was sick, and living in Italy, far from his family in Wisconsin or his

friends in San Francisco. He was receiving inadequate medical care and outdated

health information. He could no longer work. Why didn't he go home?

Because his Italian lover, Pietro, could not get permanent resident status in

the United States, and Tim wouldn't leave him. Tim died 7000 miles from his

friends and family because he couldn't simply marry the man he loved and come

home, as any female US citizen could have done, or as he could have done with

any female Italian citizen.

Second Class Citizens?

Although the phrase " second class citizen " has become a cliché used by many

people without really thinking about it, take this opportunity to really think

about it now. Are there two classes of citizenship? Do lesbians and gay men

belong to a category of citizenship that has a lower status, fewer rights and

protections, than a heterosexual citizen?

A woman and a man have the right to marry legally. That right brings with its

exercise the protection of over 1000 federal laws and hundreds of state laws. It

brings with it the right to visit your spouse in the hospital or prison, to make

medical decisions for your spouse, to file joint tax returns and claim

money-saving exemptions, to inherit from intestate spouses. If a US citizen

marries a person from another country, the foreign spouse gains the right to

reside in this country. Pensions, social security, health insurance, and death

benefits all automatically kick in when legal marriage takes place. Married

couples enjoy the benefits of marital life estate trusts, estate tax marital

deductions, family partnership tax income, damages from injuries to a spouse,

bereavement leave and benefits, unemployment benefits for quitting a job to move

with a spouse to a new job, burial determination, property rights, child

custody, crime victim recovery benefits, domestic violence intervention, divorce

protection, exemption from property tax when a spouse dies, protection from

being forced to testify against your spouse in court. This list goes on and on,

but it adds up to just one thing: Second class citizenship for lesbians and gay

men.

" Call It Something Else "

In promoting the " civil union " or " domestic partnership " alternative, some

people suggest, " Can't you just call it something else? " They don't really want

to deny the equal protection of the law to anyone, but feel personally

uncomfortable with using the term " marriage " to define same-sex unions. Is it

compatible with the ideals on which this country was built to have one group of

citizens live under a form of marriage apartheid, a sexual-orientation Jim Crow

system? As long as there are two water fountains, does it matter if one is

marked " gay " and one is marked " straight " ?

For the Bible Tells Me So

There's no doubt that much opposition to same-sex marriage is based on religious

belief. Religious opposition to same-sex marriage is perfectly valid. No law

could ever force a religion to perform same-sex marriages, but is it compatible

with the Constitution for legal marriage to be denied to couples of the same

gender based on the religious beliefs of other citizens?

Civil Rights

Same-sex marriage is fundamentally about civil rights, and the law doesn't have

to ask if those rights make one group uncomfortable. It doesn't matter that

large groups of people, even a majority, might oppose those rights; civil rights

don't vest by " majority rule " or popular opinion.

And perhaps the most pertinent question of all: Is personal repugnance. the

" ick " factor. sufficient to allow a powerful majority to oppose the rights of a

despised minority, while holding onto those rights for itself?

Christie

February 13, 2004

In a message dated 2/14/04 12:08:40 AM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Actually, I'd go a step further and allow " civil unions " for any group that

> wants to make them -- it would be a set of rights etc. that are now found

> for " marriage " , but you could form such a union with your sister or anyone

else

> that you might be living with long term ... it would not say anything about

> sexual activity or lack thereof, just that you are sharing your financial and

> emotional lives.

I agree that that is a better system than what we have now. It think the

idea that gay's have a " right " to be " married " is just stupid. Marriage is a

religious ceremony, and whether you have a right to one depends on the rules of

the religion you choose to adhere to. If no religion will marry you, start

your own. That goes for hetersexuals, polygamists, and anyone-- you can't have

a

" right " endowed by the state to acquire something from a private institution.

However, I really don't see the point of state-sanctioned civil unions. Of

course you should be able to share your finances or share anything you want.

As to rights at hospitals, you should designate in your contract with the

hospital who can and cannot be involved in what situations. Just like you do

for

who can use your bank account, credit card, or video rental card.

People should be able to eat carrots, sheep, or love whoever they want. But

they don't need an official recognition from the State to do so.

Chris

February 13, 2004

As far as I know you can get married...only we are all limited on who we can

marry. I can only marry a non-relative man. Like you I am limited.

But this issue won't be settled here or anywhere else to all our

satisfaction. /

Re: re: Disurbing article

>> NAMBLA is political that's why you hear about them. <<

I understand the point you're trying to make, but I completely disagree that

" NAMBLA is political, that's why you hear about them. " You hear about NAMBLA

not because of NAMBLA, but because they are constantly being brought up in

anti-gay propaganda. Which does three things: It makes it easy to see gay

men as a community of child molestors instead of humans with rights, it

keeps a connection between homosexuality and child molestation in people's

minds, and it keeps NAMBLA itself in existence by giving them the notoriety

they crave.

>> How did this strain get started

anyway? Was it the gay marriage thing? It sure has taken a life of it's

own Both sides have valid points. That makes for a good discussion. <<

I don't find the " side " that says that they should be able to get married

but I shouldn't to have a valid point at all. They may find it icky, but

that's hardly a legitimate basis to create a second class of citizenship and

force me into it.

I also have been finding it rather infuriating to listen to all these people

on TV debating whether or not I should have the right to do what a drunk

pimp and a hooker can run off to do on ten minutes' aquaintance after

meeting in a crackhouse. But hey, everyone's viewpoint is valid, right?

For the record I completely agree with whoever said that the government

should get out of the marriage business entirely. It's the only way to

settle this. But I still say the only real basis to objecting to giving me

equal rights to marriage is that people think it's icky. I wrote an article

about this four years ago, still rings true for me now:

Same-sex Marriage:

The Rule of Law vs. the " Ick Factor

by Christie

Tim was sick, and living in Italy, far from his family in Wisconsin or his

friends in San Francisco. He was receiving inadequate medical care and

outdated health information. He could no longer work. Why didn't he go home?

Because his Italian lover, Pietro, could not get permanent resident status

in the United States, and Tim wouldn't leave him. Tim died 7000 miles from

his friends and family because he couldn't simply marry the man he loved and

come home, as any female US citizen could have done, or as he could have

done with any female Italian citizen.

Second Class Citizens?

Although the phrase " second class citizen " has become a cliché used by many

people without really thinking about it, take this opportunity to really

think about it now. Are there two classes of citizenship? Do lesbians and

gay men belong to a category of citizenship that has a lower status, fewer

rights and protections, than a heterosexual citizen?

A woman and a man have the right to marry legally. That right brings with

its exercise the protection of over 1000 federal laws and hundreds of state

laws. It brings with it the right to visit your spouse in the hospital or

prison, to make medical decisions for your spouse, to file joint tax returns

and claim money-saving exemptions, to inherit from intestate spouses. If a

US citizen marries a person from another country, the foreign spouse gains

the right to reside in this country. Pensions, social security, health

insurance, and death benefits all automatically kick in when legal marriage

takes place. Married couples enjoy the benefits of marital life estate

trusts, estate tax marital deductions, family partnership tax income,

damages from injuries to a spouse, bereavement leave and benefits,

unemployment benefits for quitting a job to move with a spouse to a new job,

burial determination, property rights, child custody, crime victim recovery

benefits, domestic violence intervention, divorce protection, exemption from

property tax when a spouse dies, protection from being forced to testify

against your spouse in court. This list goes on and on, but it adds up to

just one thing: Second class citizenship for lesbians and gay men.

" Call It Something Else "

In promoting the " civil union " or " domestic partnership " alternative, some

people suggest, " Can't you just call it something else? " They don't really

want to deny the equal protection of the law to anyone, but feel personally

uncomfortable with using the term " marriage " to define same-sex unions. Is

it compatible with the ideals on which this country was built to have one

group of citizens live under a form of marriage apartheid, a

sexual-orientation Jim Crow system? As long as there are two water

fountains, does it matter if one is marked " gay " and one is marked

" straight " ?

For the Bible Tells Me So

There's no doubt that much opposition to same-sex marriage is based on

religious belief. Religious opposition to same-sex marriage is perfectly

valid. No law could ever force a religion to perform same-sex marriages, but

is it compatible with the Constitution for legal marriage to be denied to

couples of the same gender based on the religious beliefs of other citizens?

Civil Rights

Same-sex marriage is fundamentally about civil rights, and the law doesn't

have to ask if those rights make one group uncomfortable. It doesn't matter

that large groups of people, even a majority, might oppose those rights;

civil rights don't vest by " majority rule " or popular opinion.

And perhaps the most pertinent question of all: Is personal repugnance. the

" ick " factor. sufficient to allow a powerful majority to oppose the rights

of a despised minority, while holding onto those rights for itself?

Christie

February 13, 2004

Quoting Christie <christiekeith@...>:

> I don't find the " side " that says that they should be able to get married

> but I shouldn't to have a valid point at all. They may find it icky, but

> that's hardly a legitimate basis to create a second class of citizenship

> and force me into it.

>

> I also have been finding it rather infuriating to listen to all these

> people on TV debating whether or not I should have the right to do what a

> drunk pimp and a hooker can run off to do on ten minutes' aquaintance

> after meeting in a crackhouse. But hey, everyone's viewpoint is valid,

> right?

It's not really true that the state's refusal to recognize homosexual

marriage amounts to creating second-class citizens. You have as much right

as anyone else to get married, subject to exactly the same restrictions as

anyone else--namely that you may marry at most one person, and that that

person must be of the opposite sex.

This isn't about whether homosexuals have the right to do what any

heterosexual person can do--rather, it's about whether they have the right

to do what no heterosexual person can do. The fact that you would prefer to

marry another woman does not make you a second-class citizen any more than

the desire to marry two men would make you a second-class citizen.

Actually, this isn't about rights at all. It's about whether or not the

state is obligated to provide legal recognition and sanction to a class of

relationships to which it currently does not extend those privileges.

In case anyone is tempted to read anything into the above. I'm just trying

to frame the issue properly. I'm not offering an opinion.

I would, however, like to point out that this wouldn't even be an issue in a

free society.

> For the record I completely agree with whoever said that the government

> should get out of the marriage business entirely. It's the only way to

> settle this. But I still say the only real basis to objecting to giving

> me equal rights to marriage is that people think it's icky.

I don't think that's it. I think it's icky (unless we're talking about

young, attractive women, of course), but that doesn't affect anything

beyond my choice not to engage in it myself. From what I've seen, those who

are leading the fight against state recognition of homosexual marriage are

doing so more out of deep religious conviction than out of simple distaste

for it.

--

Berg

bberg@...

February 13, 2004

>> As far as I know you can get married...only we are all limited on who we can

marry. I can only marry a non-relative man. Like you I am limited. <<

ROFL... like I said, Jim Crow... marriage apartheid. I can marry anyone except

anyone I'd ever marry. We both can get a drink of water from a fountain, just

not the same fountain. Do you honestly not get it? Or do you just not want to

share?

Do you have any idea how mean-spirited this is?

This isn't a theoretical issue, it's people's hearts and lives.

Christie

February 13, 2004

>> This isn't about whether homosexuals have the right to do what any

heterosexual person can do--rather, it's about whether they have the right

to do what no heterosexual person can do. The fact that you would prefer to

marry another woman does not make you a second-class citizen any more than

the desire to marry two men would make you a second-class citizen.<<

I find this to be utterly unconvincing as an argument for reasons I've already

outlined. It's Jim Crow. My brother can marry the woman he loves, I cannot.

Ergo, I do not have the same right as my brother does. Ergo, I am in a second

class of citizenship.

To suggest that I'm " equal " to you because I could marry a man or because you

couldn't is just playing a word game that has no bearing on the reality of this

situation. If I were to marry, I'd want to marry a woman, because I'm a lesbian.

Anything else is just LESS. I don't want LESS. I want exactly what you and my

brother have.

>> From what I've seen, those who

are leading the fight against state recognition of homosexual marriage are

doing so more out of deep religious conviction than out of simple distaste

for it. <<

Even if that were completely true (and I think it's only partly true), I wasn't

talking about the leaders. I was talking about all the people who say they

support equal rights for lesbians and gay men but don't feel that same sex

couples should get MARRIED or call it " marriage. " Like Bill Clinton or Arnold

Schwartzenegger or Dean or whoever, who say they dont' support gay

marriage but do support civil unions. What else is that but " the ick factor " ?

Sure, televangelists and the pope don't want my country letting me get married

due to their religious beliefs. They are entitled to believe whatever they want,

but I don't think my rights should be conditioned on fitting in with someone's

religious beliefs. And they wouldn't be, IMO, if not for the " ick factor. "

Christie

February 13, 2004

Hi, I have been reading some of the posts regarding gay marriage and I wanted to

know what civil union is. Isn't that the same as being married by a Justice of

the Peace? I thought the reason a lot of politians don't support gay marriage is

they want to keep separate, religion and state. Can any church marry gay couples

if they want? Sorry about my ignorance but I thought this was taken care of in

the sixties.

I can't imagine government not allowing marriage between anybody (except of

course children) except not wanting to interfer with church.

SheilaN