That's irrelevant to the discussion. There are very good reasons to discriminate against arsonists, and while I would like to, there unfortunately is no real reason to dscriminate against neo-conservatives.
Why the addition of pedophilia to the discussion about homosexuality? Pedos are far more likely to be males abusing female children. If anything by the connection you're implying we should discriminate against hetros. The critical factors are the possibility of harming the partner, mutual consent and being able to make a reasoned judgement in the case of sex with others. By all those factors pedophilia whether with young girls (the most common form) or with young boys (more uncommon), is wrong. Now if the partner is over the age of consent and is willing to participate, whether they are male or female, is by and large non of our business and so the law should not intrude in their private lives. This includes being able to make medical decisions for one's partner when they cannot, being eligible for medical or other insurance or pension benefits, being able to inherit, or have survivorship benefits. I can be married to a brainless bimbo for 5 minutes and she would have more rights than a same sex partner if I was with him for 20 years. I knew this one guy who died of AIDS about 10 years ago. He had a partner who had been with Gary for about 6 years. When Gary was dying, Don was not permitted to visit Gary, since he was not related to him. We had to sneak Don into Gary's room so he could say goodby. Is that right? larry larry On 7/6/05, Jerry Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Larry, > > What if it turns out that pedophilia is physiologically based? Or > arson? Or cleptomania? Or conservatism? Should we then stop > "discriminating" against practitioners? > > As flawed as Matt's logic may be, could yours also have its cracks? > > Jerry Johnson > > On 7/6/05, Larry C. Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So if the same basis for discriminating against homosexuals (a > > physiological based difference among humans) could be applied to > > blacks or the disabled or other groups who could be differentiated on > > the basis of other physiological differences, then that would be > > acceptible. Because by your logic, discriminating against homosexuals > > or lesbians would be as acceptible as > > promoting discrimination because of one's ethnic or racial background. > > > > I'm just trying to clarify your reasoning here. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:163296 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
