Pete in trouble: a tempest in a teacup

["Mark R. Leaman" <bushchoked@xxxxxxxxx>]

>believes that people are free to explore their sexual orientation and am NOT

Rick:

Well, if what I said didn't apply to you (or Leslie) then I guess I wasn't talking about you (or Leslie). Of course, that's just another example of the sort of silly, foppish 60's liberal attitude we're condemning here...

>the fault of George Bush

Yeah...I guess I have to work on that. I know, it's all Clinton's fault. It's just too large a coincidence for me to swallow, that's all. I don't believe in Bigfoot either. But I DO know who sold biological samples and chemicals to and armed (and funded)Saddam, and it was NOT Clinton. Not by about 10 years...yet still, it's HIS fault...yeah, that makes sense...

>does your tolerance also apply to pedophiles -- which is another 
sexual orientation?

Alan:

That IS a tough one, no doubt about it. As I said before, the way I see it the problem with pedophilia is what is actually done to the children...the damage done to them in particular. I suppose if someone was excited by children but never acted on it beyond looking at pictures...I mean it's not MY cuppa tea, but I guess I'd have to say it's hard to condemn someone for the way they are at birth. Unless of course they touch a child, then everything changes. Or at least as I see it. I also think legal prostitution would end a large percentage of sex crimes, so this goes along with that. 

But while we're at it: how much different is a picture of a nude child (my ignorance about child porn probably showing here) and a young girl dressed up in an adult-type evening gown with adult makeup in a beauty contest, especially when it's well known pedophiles are a large part of the audience? For that matter, at what age does it become OK to have sex with a willing individual? 18? If so, there's a LOT of criminals out there. Does it hinge on (as you say) the willingness of the participants? Or perhaps the influence the adult exerts over the child (which would mean John Malvo shouldn't get the death penalty, although personally I think he should)? I guess this is why we (used to) have a legal system...to decide these things.

>the last couple of years combined. I'm not necessarily happy about 

I can dig it.

>Is NOT having that view part of your definition of "conservative"? 

If you mean not having that view is part of THE definition of conservative, yes. Part.

>Ever hear of the Log Cabin Republicans?

Yeah. Ever heard of the Flat Earth Society? I put them both in the same catagory.

>I'm the one that's sorry. You should reconsider, and get your ass out of
your funk.

Scott:

Don't you mean "get the funk outta yo ass?" Isn't that a song?

>The majority of people
>have made up their mind. Pete's a pedophile.

Who are these majority people?

I am with you here, Scott! Every single person who has come into my store to discuss it, and let me tell you...since I wear my Whodom like a freakin' badge, that's a LOT of people, and that's not even counting the Zep fans I've pissed off...so far NOT A SINGLE ONE really thinks Pete is a pedophile. This is a tempest in a teacup. Few REALLY believe it. They just like to rag Who fans about it, because as we all know all fans of other bands hate Who fans because we say The Who are they best Rock band and they know we're right...and they resent it.


NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!

                              Cheers             ML
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now