In relation to the law review articles, I have not read all of them yet and have only skimmed over some of them, particularly the paedophilia article that you mentioned. From what I can see, it is fairly well documented (not merely claims) and the statistics mentioned and articles cited are rather shocking. I certainly would not judge any homosexual based on the information in that article (I don’t think that any of my friends would interpret the article in such a way either), but I do think that when such statistics do exist it is important to at least consider them. By that, I mean that it is important for anyone to consider, homosexuals and heterosexuals alike, as we strive together to solve such societal problems as paedophilia. Children are incredibly important, and given that a primary purpose of the law is to protect individuals, including children, such information has as much relevance to a law review as any other publication. The more one knows about such issues as paedophilia, the better one can make laws and establish policies addressing those problems (In saying this, I am not proposing any discriminatory laws. I just think that such information is relevant to the legislative process for creating nondiscriminatory laws to better address this segment of paedophilia.) Since I have not fully read the article, I am not sure if I would agree with everything in it, but I do think that it is an important topic to write about if that much information exists on the subject.

So there you have my views. I would greatly appreciate your perspective on this topic and on the statistics and articles mentioned in that article since I have little knowledge about the homosexual movement myself and had no idea that any homosexual publications (even extreme ones) supported paedophilia before skimming through that article. Thanks. 🙂

You also partly answered something I asked Warren in the first post — to ask Mark to detail what had been specifically organised from Regent itself. Still don’t know, regardless of what individuals did off campus.

You may well feel comfortable with the environment there (I’d wish everyone is) but many are not and cannot be open about the problems they face and the distress that they feel. I don’t have to speculate about that, given the conversations we’ve had over the years — conversations that you (and Melissa particularly) may not have had. I don’t think ER came looking to highlight people like you, but I hope they left with you understanding other’s discomfort in the same environment.

But you do seem to be saying that ER has (partly?) actually achieved what it set out to do. That much they should be pleased with.

It also leaves you with the responsibility to pass their message through to Regent admin… on behave of those who feel they cannot be open.

PS Melissa, given you’ve just id yourself: perhaps you may have a comment about the RLR edition I link to in that first post — ie. what is the chance such an edition would be repeated today?

(I’m not sure what those hideous claims about paedophilia etc have to do with a Law Review, but stranger things have happened. Those “extras” were the basic reason Stamford rejected the whole lot, but Regent chose to publish them anyway.)