Re: Guilty when innocent (to some)

[Alan McKendree <amck@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 06:14:31 -0800 (PST)
> From: "Mark R. Leaman" <bushchoked@yahoo.com>
>
> Kevin:
>
> It should be kept in mind that conservatives (if indeed Leslie is 
> one) consider homosexuality a morally corrupt position, as if 
> someone "chose" to be one. Someone they'd call a "liberal" knows 
> it's a natural, and not particularly desirable except perhaps by a 
> lunatic, part of the person's makeup.
I disagree with this position (condemning homosexuality), for the 
reason you cite...that one does not choose sexual orientation.  Now: 
does your tolerance also apply to pedophiles -- which is another 
sexual orientation?  Granted, there is a distinction between 
relationships in which both partners are mature and rational, and 
ones in which one is not.  But if that's to be the distinction, 
should bestiality "as illegal" as pedophilia?  should it be illegal 
to even look at pix of bestiality, or should we decriminalize looking 
at pictures of pedophilia?

(I've been thinking about pedophilia more in the last week than in 
the last couple of years combined.  I'm not necessarily happy about 
this.)

At 8:38 -0800 1/17/03, The Who Mailing List Digest wrote:
>  >Like many conservatives, I believe that sexual orientation is neither
> good nor bad, it just exists
>
> Watch out, that's a "liberal" point of view! And for the record, 
> you're the ONLY conservative I've ever heard in 35 years who has 
> said that.
Is NOT having that view part of your definition of "conservative"? 
Ever hear of the Log Cabin Republicans?  It's a caucus of gay 
Republicans, FYI.

Cheers,
--
Alan
"That's unbelievable, if that's true."
   --Howard Stern, 5/25/00