] >     I think the dialogue would go better if (at least some) gays
] >showed awareness of a practical issue.  For example. men and women use
] >different toilets.  Hence men who are likely to abuse girls have that
] >avenue closed to them.  There are many other situations where it is easy
] >to prevent sexual abuse BETWEEN the two sexes through such measures and
] >social conventions.  It is harder to prevent it with gays but if those
] >gays who do not abuse children (nor want to) became aware that this is
] >a practical problem that we can solve with good will on both sides, then
] >we can have protection for parents and children at the same time as
] >protection for gays in those ways that are of importance to their
] >pursuit of happiness in their own way.
] >
] >Just a thought
] >
] >Rohit Parikh
] -------------------
] Sorry, Rohit, but you are responding to someone well-recognized as a
] flaming nut, i.e., Clayton Cramer. He must have been abused by a man and is
] living his life in an attempt to vilify all men who like sex with other men
] something slightly similar to the way his assailant liked it with him. He
] will alter or misrepresent anything he finds to try to prove that there are
] homosexuals who wish to rape little boys like he was coming out of the
] woodwork. There is no hope for him. In all probability he is secretly gay,
] which compounds his neurosis in his own mind, by thinking that someone else
] made him that way. I don't personally see how someone like him could walk
] and chew gum at the same time, as mentally crippled and dominated as he is
] by his fantasies.
] 
] He would have you believe that the figures on the percentage of people who
] like to do it with the same sex sometime or all the time is way smaller
] than it is, but then he will virtually assert that everyone's queer and
] they're trying to get him. He actually believes, despite all evidence that
] homosexuals do some huge disproportionate amount of child sexual abuse,
] even though he insists that there may be as few as 1% of them in the male
] population! If there were that few of them in the population, San Francisco
] would currently be empty, because a significant portion of them have sought
] a tolerant atmosphere in that city, and the numbers simply do not work when
] you add up their home town origins. There is nothing to be gained by
] communicating with Clayton Cramer, he is unable to listen to anyone.
] -RSW
] 
] 
] --
] * Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *
] * 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
] * Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
] * Real Men would never accept organ-slavery and will protect Women.  *

Sorry, but I don't see how the response applies to what was posted.

Unless I am badly mistaken, Rohit is suggesting that protecting boys
from men is different than protecting girls from men. There are situations
in which boys and girls are apart from members of the *opposite* sex
(due to social convention or whatever) and thus are safe (in at least
some sense). These same situations don't (necessarily) protect the
children from abuse by members of the *same* sex.

If we can understand that, it's not such a tremendous leap to suggest
that if we all think about it hard, *someone* may come up with a
practical solution (or even a partial solution) to some of the situations
in which children are made vulnerable to homosexuals who wish to abuse
them. By working together "with good will on both sides", we may be
able to start solving problems without restricting anyone's freedoms.

Mr. Walz on the other hand is using Rohit's post as an excuse for
personal attacks on Mr. Cramer. While Mr. Walz hasn't (by a *long*
stretch) been the only one to flame Mr. Cramer, it is no less childish
and it only serves to weaken any other arguments he may make in the
future.
