nick@hp-sdd.UUCP (Nick Flor) (07/09/86)
In article <14777@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jwl@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis) writes: > >> >> Laws should take into account: >>A) What society as a whole desires. >>B) What is good for society regardless of A. >> >>If A&B are satisfied to some extent, then it is a good law. > >Society as a whole does not have 'desires'. Individual members of a society >may have desires, but what do you propose to do when conflicts arise within >society? > So I screwed up in my English. When conflicts arise, then someone takes action regarding point B. >What do you mean by 'good for society'? Whatever makes the majority happy? >What if something that benefits the majority causes great harm to some >minority? > Come on dammit. You can't consider A or B separately. They must be considered together. Point B takes care of your questions. (And like I said, the trick is -- Who decides B). >>Does the the Supreme Courts ruling satisfy A? >>Does the Supreme Courts ruling satisfy B? >>(Answer this one for yourselves) > >Neither, as far as I can tell. Yeah, well that's your opinion. > >> >>>The few people who are planning to followup this article with something about >>>aids needn't bother, because: 1) anti-gay laws antedated aids, and 2) aids >>>started off as a heterosexual disease; it's not gays giving it to straights. >> >>Point 2 is weak. I seem to remember a report a while back stating that >>the number of incidences of heterosexual aids is increasing. > >This is not inconsistent with Alan's point. Quit chopping off the rest of my article. The next couple of statements said something to the effect of "It doesn't matter who started it. The fact of the matter is -- The homosexuals are spreading it". Look pal, if you have to flame, stop playing Mr. Editor. You chopped off the said portion, which clearly shows the contrary to Alan's point. > >>If this ruling >>decreases the amount of homosexual activity and as a result the number >>of AIDS *victims*, well then... > >If you believe this ruling is going to have even the slightest effect on the >amount of homosexual activity in states with anti-sodomy laws, you are >*incredibly* naive! It's not easy to legislate someone's libido out of >existence. (thank God!) > I never said it would stop homosexual activity. But maybe it'll make them think about it a little more. Maybe it'll serve as a guideline for those youngsters in society and make them turn away from homosexual activities. > >Well, syphilis and gonorrhea are spread mainly by heterosexuals. If we >decrease the amount of heterosexual activity.....hmmm! > juxtaposition. HAH But they are CURABLE diseases. AIDS is not. >>Nick V. Flor >>..hplabs!hp-sdd!nick >>The Comedian > There you go again. Chopping off part of my article and pasting it elsewhere for your purposes. If you had bothered to look a little more closely, you'd see that The Comedian is the person who did the quote. (Thank you for chopping off the quote). I wasn't saying that I was a Comedian. >-- Jim Lewis > U.C. Berkeley > "The Serious Guy" -- ---------- Nick V. Flor ..hplabs!hp-sdd!nick "What's going down in this world, you got no idea. Believe me." The Comedian
ooblick@unirot.UUCP (Mikki Barry) (07/10/86)
In article <318@hp-sdd.UUCP> nick@hp-sdd.UUCP (Nick Flor) writes: >>>If this ruling >>>decreases the amount of homosexual activity and as a result the number >>>of AIDS *victims*, well then... >> >>If you believe this ruling is going to have even the slightest effect on the >>amount of homosexual activity in states with anti-sodomy laws, you are >>*incredibly* naive! It's not easy to legislate someone's libido out of >>existence. (thank God!) >> >I never said it would stop homosexual activity. But maybe it'll make them >think about it a little more. Maybe it'll serve as a guideline for those >youngsters in society and make them turn away from homosexual activities. Perhaps you should keep in mind that the original reason this went to the Supreme Court in the first place was for the illegality of ORAL SEX! The two people charged under the Georgia law were males having oral sex. The Georgia law that was upheld was not an anal sex law against homosexuals, it was an oral and/or anal sex law against ANYONE! This includes two people of the opposite sex that are married. In this light, does it change your opinion of the ruling? Do you wish the government to certify ok and not ok sexual habits? p.s. If you are so concerned about AIDS, and other sexually transmitted diseases, the Lesbian population seems to have the least amount of risk in transmitting or contracting any of these things. However, their activies are also illegal under these laws. You'll have to find another justification for the Supreme Court's decision. It certainly wasn't health related. Mikki Barry
wendyt@pyramid.UUCP (Wendy Thrash) (07/10/86)
In article <318@hp-sdd.UUCP> nick@hp-sdd.UUCP (Nick Flor) writes: >...I wasn't saying that I was a Comedian. Nick, Nick, Nick: You don't have to; we'll say it FOR you! Folks, Nick Flor is one FUNNY GUY! Wait until Carson gets wind of him. Nah, I think he'd do better with David Letterman -- perhaps as a lead-in to Stupid Pet Tricks. BTW, Dude, I hope you'll forgive me for not quoting your whole damned article. -- Wendy Thrash {allegra,cmcl2,decwrl,hplabs,topaz,ut-sally}!pyramid!wendyt Pyramid Technology Corp, Mountain View, CA +1 415 965 7200 ext. 3001
girard@osu-cgrg.UUCP (michael girard) (07/11/86)
In discussing the recent supreme court ruling regarding sodomy, the discussion on the net became an argument about homosexuality: > I never said it would stop homosexual activity. But maybe it'll make them > think about it a little more. Maybe it'll serve as a guideline for those > youngsters in society and make them turn away from homosexual activities. > > > > >Well, syphilis and gonorrhea are spread mainly by heterosexuals. If we > >decrease the amount of heterosexual activity.....hmmm! > > Heterosexuals also engage in oral sex (which is legally considered to be "sodomy") for obvious reasons. From a logical standpoint, the issue should be: 1. Is sodomy harmful? 2. If is is, does the government have the right to legislate against sodomy in order to protect society from its harmful effects? For example, murder is harmful and society should be protected. Cigarette smoking is harmful, but individuals are permitted to make their own decision. But sodomy is not even harmful (in fact "oral sex" is a safe method for birth control). Therefore, the second question is not relevant. Frankly, I'm stunned that such blatent puritanical laws are being upheld by the supreme court. Logic has been cast aside by the reactionary backlash. Of course, thinking has never been one of their better skills. Hate and pride have locked their minds into a vicious, irrational state. ---Michael
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Damballah Wedo) (07/11/86)
> Nick Flor: > It doesn't matter who started [AIDS]. The fact of > the matter is -- The homosexuals are spreading it.... This is false. The gay community (in the New York area, at least) has been most active in promoting and adopting safe sex guidelines that slow down the spread of the disease. Indeed, health statistics over the last six months or so indicate that the greatest percentage of new cases are transmitted by infected intraveinous drug users sharing dirty needles or from heterosexual sexual relations with prostitutes (who have a large intersection with the drug user population.) In fact, health professionals in this area are emphatic: AIDS is no longer exclusively, nor even primarily a "gay disease;" As for the recent Supreme Court ruling, by Justice White's argument that there exists a strong tradition in the law and in the culture for anti-sodomy laws, racism, slavery and segregation would still be the law of the land. Remember the "but biblical figures had slaves" areguments? Is Justice WHite intent on repealing the Fourteenth Amendment? Why are gays not entitled to the same rights as everyone else (since the decision specifically does not address heterosexual sodomy)? All in all, I cannot help but agree with Justice Blackmun's dissent that "only the most willfull blindness" denies that consensual sexual activity is covered by the basic right to privacy. -- Marcel-Franck Simon ihnp4!{mhuxr, hl3b5b}!mfs " Ayiti cheri, pi bon payi pase' ou nan poin " " Fok moin te' kite'-ou, pou moin te kapab konpran vale`-ou "
nick@hp-sdd.UUCP (Nick Flor) (07/11/86)
In article <848@unirot.UUCP> ooblick@unirot.UUCP (Mikki Barry) writes: >In article <318@hp-sdd.UUCP> nick@hp-sdd.UUCP (Nick Flor) writes: >>I never said it would stop homosexual activity. But maybe it'll make them >>think about it a little more. Maybe it'll serve as a guideline for those >>youngsters in society and make them turn away from homosexual activities. > >Perhaps you should keep in mind that the original reason this went to the >Supreme Court in the first place was for the illegality of ORAL SEX! The >two people charged under the Georgia law were males having oral sex. The >Georgia law that was upheld was not an anal sex law against homosexuals, it >was an oral and/or anal sex law against ANYONE! > >This includes two people of the opposite sex that are married. > >In this light, does it change your opinion of the ruling? Do you wish the >government to certify ok and not ok sexual habits? > Gasp!!! Argh!!! ban ORAL SEX??? What will the bachelors do on the night of their holiest vows? Melanie and the gang of 4 should appreciate this ruling. But to seriously answer your questions: NO and YES. The line has to be drawn somewhere. Hasn't anyone else noticed the moral decay in this country, or is everyone afraid of getting flamed or called a Bible thumper? -- ---------- Nick V. Flor ..hplabs!hp-sdd!nick "What's going down in this world, you got no idea. Believe me." The Comedian
weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Wimpy Math Grad Student) (07/12/86)
In article <318@hp-sdd.UUCP> nick@hp-sdd.UUCP (Nick Flor) writes: >I never said it would stop homosexual activity. But maybe it'll make them >think about it a little more. Maybe it'll serve as a guideline for those >youngsters in society and make them turn away from homosexual activities. You've got it backwards. It's going to encourage even more disrespect for law in general and the Supreme Court in particular. And not just from gays. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Wimpy Grad Student/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 "Joker, there's nothing wrong with you that I can't fix ... with my hands."
ooblick@unirot.UUCP (Mikki Barry) (07/13/86)
>In article <318@hp-sdd.UUCP> nick@hp-sdd.UUCP (Nick Flor) writes: >>I never said it would stop homosexual activity. But maybe it'll make them >>think about it a little more. Maybe it'll serve as a guideline for those >>youngsters in society and make them turn away from homosexual activities. Why should they? Because *you* don't approve of it? I think this is an important point since you go on to speak about morals... >Perhaps you should keep in mind that the original reason this went to the >Supreme Court in the first place was for the illegality of ORAL SEX! The >two people charged under the Georgia law were males having oral sex. The >Georgia law that was upheld was not an anal sex law against homosexuals, it >was an oral and/or anal sex law against ANYONE! > >This includes two people of the opposite sex that are married. > >In this light, does it change your opinion of the ruling? Do you wish the >government to certify ok and not ok sexual habits? [me] But to seriously answer your questions: NO and YES. The line has to be drawn somewhere. Hasn't anyone else noticed the moral decay in this country, or is everyone afraid of getting flamed or called a Bible thumper? Whose morals would you like to impose? Congress'? Yours? Why does this "line have to be drawn"? Because *you* don't approve of certain sexual practices? Why can't it just be left at you have your kind of sex and I'll have mine? It certainly can't be for health reasons, because oral sex doesn't spread any diseases. I, for one, resent the government telling me and my husband what we can and can't do in bed. Does anyone else think sexual freedom is an unreasonable wish? Mikki Barry
jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (07/14/86)
In article <322@hp-sdd.UUCP> nick@hp-sdd.UUCP (Nick Flor) writes: >The line has to be drawn somewhere. Hasn't anyone else noticed the moral >decay in this country, or is everyone afraid of getting flamed or called >a Bible thumper? The only moral decay I have noticed is in the behavior of certain govermental and self-proclaimed religious organizations - and even that I would call ethical rather than moral. There's a much easier and more sensible place to draw the line - between consenting adults and non-consenting adults. Jeff Winslow
rob@dadla.UUCP (Rob Vetter) (07/14/86)
In article <686@osu-cgrg.UUCP> girard@osu-cgrg.UUCP (michael girard) writes: > > In discussing the recent supreme court ruling regarding sodomy, >the discussion on the net became an argument about homosexuality: > >> I never said it would stop homosexual activity. But maybe it'll make them >> think about it a little more. >> > >> >Well, syphilis and gonorrhea are spread mainly by heterosexuals. If we >> >decrease the amount of heterosexual activity.....hmmm! >> > > Heterosexuals also engage in oral sex (which is legally >considered to be "sodomy") for obvious reasons. From a logical >standpoint, the issue should be: > > 1. Is sodomy harmful? > 2. If is is, does the government have the right to legislate against > sodomy in order to protect society from its harmful effects? 3. Should a government have the right to regulate any activity or behaviour that has no affect on someone not participating ? I agree with your point of view. The government should NOT have the right to legislate morality. That's one of the reasons for a "separation of church and state". -- Rob Vetter (503) 629-1044 [ihnp4, ucbvax, decvax, uw-beaver]!tektronix!dadla!rob " " !psu-cs!vetterr "Waste is a terrible thing to mind" - NRC (Well, they COULD have said it)
chelsea@dartvax.UUCP (Karen Christenson) (07/14/86)
>>This includes two people of the opposite sex that are married. >> >>In this light, does it change your opinion of the ruling? Do you wish the >>government to certify ok and not ok sexual habits? >> >Gasp!!! Argh!!! ban ORAL SEX??? What will the bachelors do on the night >of their holiest vows? Melanie and the gang of 4 should appreciate this >ruling. > >But to seriously answer your questions: >NO and YES. > >The line has to be drawn somewhere. Hasn't anyone else noticed the moral >decay in this country, or is everyone afraid of getting flamed or called >a Bible thumper? > >-- >---------- >Nick V. Flor >..hplabs!hp-sdd!nick 1) I'm not convinced we need lines drawn (lines are so inflexible). 2) Is it the business of the government to draw those lines? 3) Is it the business of the government to address the question of moral decay at all? 4) Are you going to start harking back to the "good old days" when things were moral, and send all the history buffs into peals of laughter? 5) Do you do this just to get everyone all riled up? Or maybe provoke discussion? Karen Christenson "Mostly harmless." ...!dartvax!chelsea
thain@magic.UUCP (07/15/86)
In article <322@hp-sdd.UUCP>, nick@hp-sdd.UUCP (Nick Flor) writes: > In article <848@unirot.UUCP> ooblick@unirot.UUCP (Mikki Barry) writes: > >In article <318@hp-sdd.UUCP> nick@hp-sdd.UUCP (Nick Flor) writes: > >In this light, does it change your opinion of the ruling? Do you wish the > >government to certify ok and not ok sexual habits? > > > But to seriously answer your questions: > NO and YES. I find your opinion on this matter as scary as any boegy man that ever crawled out of a closet. Your willing to allow the government to dictate to you, ( and I should point out, everyone around you), how you should conduct your moral behavior. Even worse, you advocate that these same people should be allowed to dictate to *me*. That's pretty scary, when you look at the adminstrations that have spawned such illuminaries of our time like Joesph McCarthy, Edward Wallace, Lyndon LaRouche, and other "free thinkers" of our age. > The line has to be drawn somewhere. Hasn't anyone else noticed the moral > decay in this country, or is everyone afraid of getting flamed or called > a Bible thumper? Who's morals? Granted that the moral fiber of America has shifted from the Juedo-Christian-Puritan mold, but that's not necessarily unhealthy. You seem to feel that the government is here to protect you, take care of you, see that the "real world" outside is kept at arm's length. I don't have any problem with that, just keep me out of it. I've watched and read of too many examples of what happens to a society which gives up it's freedoms, any freedoms, even those you don't particulary find pleasant, or those that fit your own moral code. One day they take away your right to practice certain sexual positions, then it's sexual behavior, then it's "believe in us, because we tell you to," then it's "it was for your own good". C'mon Nick, your mother raised you to be a thinking person, able to make intelligent decisions about your life. Let the rest of us have the same privilage, without the need of "surrogate parents" watching our every move. Happy Trails, Glenn Proud member, HASA thain@src.DEC.COM ( The opinions above are my own, colored by my education and experiences, and in no way should be attributed to anyone else, unless they wish them to be.)
rob@dadla.UUCP (07/15/86)
In article <322@hp-sdd.UUCP> nick@hp-sdd.UUCP (Nick Flor) writes: >In article <848@unirot.UUCP> ooblick@unirot.UUCP (Mikki Barry) writes: >> >>In this light, does it change your opinion of the ruling? Do you wish the >>government to certify ok and not ok sexual habits? >> >Gasp!!! Argh!!! ban ORAL SEX??? What will the bachelors do on the night >of their holiest vows? Melanie and the gang of 4 should appreciate this >ruling. > >But to seriously answer your questions: >NO and YES. New Supreme court ruling. Christians will longer be able to have sex. That might not be a bad ruling. :-) > >The line has to be drawn somewhere. Hasn't anyone else noticed the moral >decay in this country, or is everyone afraid of getting flamed or called >a Bible thumper? Yes, a definite decay in morals. We (as a country) now condone the persecution of minorities. HOW CHRISTIAN !!! In answer to your queston, I think that people are more afraid of getting thumped by a bible. -- Rob Vetter (503) 629-1044 [ihnp4, ucbvax, decvax, uw-beaver]!tektronix!dadla!rob " " !psu-cs!vetterr "Waste is a terrible thing to mind" - NRC (Well, they COULD have said it)
ecf_bdw@jhunix.UUCP (07/15/86)
In article <322@hp-sdd.UUCP> nick@hp-sdd.UUCP (Nick Flor) writes: > >The line has to be drawn somewhere. Hasn't anyone else noticed the moral >decay in this country, or is everyone afraid of getting flamed or called >a Bible thumper? > >Nick V. Flor >..hplabs!hp-sdd!nick Well now, what exactly is moral decay? Popularity of diverse sexual practices is evidence of moral decay? Do you have any evidence that oral sex weakens someones morals? (of course if you believe that oral sex is inherently immoral you've satisfied this circularly, but then you'll have to convince me that oral sex is inherently immoral). How about laws that are unenforced or almost unenforcable? Laws that many people break routinely? Laws with apparently no logical basis? These laws contribute towards lack of respect for the law in general. Once somebody regards one ridiculous law as a joke, how much more does it take to spread this attitude to law in general? Or what about ridiculous lawsuits, say suing the makers of a ladder because they didn't specifically state that you should be sure it is planted securely? Seems to me that THIS contributes to "moral decay". -Dwight
robert@weitek.UUCP (07/15/86)
>> >In article <318@hp-sdd.UUCP> nick@hp-sdd.UUCP (Nick Flor) writes: >> >In this light, does it change your opinion of the ruling? Do you wish the >> >government to certify ok and not ok sexual habits? >> In article <848@unirot.UUCP> ooblick@unirot.UUCP (Mikki Barry) writes: >> But to seriously answer your questions: >> NO and YES. >> The line has to be drawn somewhere. Hasn't anyone else noticed the moral >> decay in this country, or is everyone afraid of getting flamed or called >> a Bible thumper? Yes, I've noticed. *YOUR* moral decay is obvious, for instance. It used to be that moral people recognized that government is (at best) an amoral institution, and can't be trusted to make moral decisions of any sort. Do the phrases Teapot Dome, Watergate, or Senate page boys mean anything to you? Regardless of whether it's morally correct to wish to legislate morality, it's clearly wrong to give government the power to legislate morality when it's obvious they'll abuse the power. Furthermore, *IF* you believe this country is in a state of moral decay, and that the "truly moral" people are in the minority, hasn't it occurred to you that legislators will get more mileage pandering to the decadent majority than the embattled minority, and that the stick you give them could be used to beat *YOU* over the head? -- Robert Plamondon UUCP: {turtlevax, cae780}!weitek!robert
oleg@ucla-cs.UUCP (07/16/86)
>>In article <318@hp-sdd.UUCP> nick@hp-sdd.UUCP (Nick Flor) writes: >>>I never said it would stop homosexual activity. But maybe it'll make them >>>think about it a little more. Maybe it'll serve as a guideline for those >>>youngsters in society and make them turn away from homosexual activities. Can you make fish swim in the air by outlawing swimming in water? How can you make a man who is sexually interested ONLY in other men NOT want to have sex with other men? What the anti-sodomy law will do is to push gay men back into oscurity, make them less willing to come out and indirectly promote the spread of AIDS by making people be afraid of seeking help and advice. In article <857@unirot.UUCP> ooblick@unirot.UUCP (Mikki Barry) writes: >I, for one, resent the government telling me and my husband what we can >and can't do in bed. Does anyone else think sexual freedom is an >unreasonable wish? I am just wondering: don't heterosexual Georgians ever have oral and anal sex? I am heterosexual and according to the Georgia's anti-sodomy law, I am a hardened sodomite! Seriously, folks, the line HAS to be drawn somewhere. I think that line should be the "bedroom door" (figuratively speaking). It is NOBODY's business what I do with another conscenting adult of any sex as long as no lasting physical harm is done (yes, altho' I do not practice and am not at all thrilled by S&M and B&D, I think people who like that kind of stuff should be allowed to practice it -- with conscenting partners). Another thought. What if Gov't decided to outlaw sex et al, or restrict sexual practices to exclusively homosexual ones. How would all of you, pro-anti-sodomy law people, feel about THAT? -- "Eggs can't walk. You know that!" Oleg Kiselev oleg%OACVAX.BITNET c234olg@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
dsf@allegra.UUCP (07/16/86)
>>Do you wish the government to certify ok and not ok sexual habits? >YES. >---------- >Nick V. Flor One of the things that the people of this country value most (as demonstrated by the recent July 4th celebration) is Liberty. If you don't love the freedom this country provides, you are free to leave. -- David Fox "Hey mister, got a light?" "Yeah, my face and your butt. No, wait a minute..." -Rustler's Rhapsody
ooblick@unirot.UUCP (07/17/86)
In article <453@weitek.UUCP> robert@weitek.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) writes: >>> >In article <318@hp-sdd.UUCP> nick@hp-sdd.UUCP (Nick Flor) writes: >>> >In this light, does it change your opinion of the ruling? Do you wish the >>> >government to certify ok and not ok sexual habits? > >>> In article <848@unirot.UUCP> ooblick@unirot.UUCP (Mikki Barry) writes: >>> But to seriously answer your questions: >>> NO and YES. > >>> The line has to be drawn somewhere. Hasn't anyone else noticed the moral >>> decay in this country, or is everyone afraid of getting flamed or called >>> a Bible thumper? TIME OUT HERE! I sense operator error. I authored the first quote (the question about government intervention), and Nick posted the yes government should step in part. I wouldn't want to damage my reputation, you know. Mikki Barry HASA (Heathen and Atheistic Scum Alliance) -----------------
alco@mit-vax.UUCP (Dave Alcocer) (07/18/86)
In article <6209@allegra.UUCP> dsf@allegra.UUCP (David Fox) writes: >>>Do you wish the government to certify ok and not ok sexual habits? >>YES. >One of the things that the people of this country value most >(as demonstrated by the recent July 4th celebration) is Liberty. >If you don't love the freedom this country provides, you are >free to leave. >- David Fox Yeah, and if you don't think this country provides enough freedom, you are free to leave as well. God, what an idiotic posting... Perhaps the the only thing more idiotic is taking the time to respond to it. - Dave Alcocer alco@mit-vax.arpa
droch@ihlpa.UUCP (Kraft) (07/22/86)
> In article <322@hp-sdd.UUCP> nick@hp-sdd.UUCP (Nick Flor) writes: > >In article <848@unirot.UUCP> ooblick@unirot.UUCP (Mikki Barry) writes: > >> > >>In this light, does it change your opinion of the ruling? Do you wish the > >>government to certify ok and not ok sexual habits? > >> > >Gasp!!! Argh!!! ban ORAL SEX??? What will the bachelors do on the night > >of their holiest vows? Melanie and the gang of 4 should appreciate this > >ruling. > > > >But to seriously answer your questions: > >NO and YES. > > New Supreme court ruling. Christians will longer be able to > have sex. That might not be a bad ruling. :-) > > > >The line has to be drawn somewhere. Hasn't anyone else noticed the moral > >decay in this country, or is everyone afraid of getting flamed or called > >a Bible thumper? > > Yes, a definite decay in morals. We (as a country) now condone > the persecution of minorities. HOW CHRISTIAN !!! > > In answer to your queston, I think that people are more afraid > of getting thumped by a bible. > -- > > Rob Vetter > (503) 629-1044 > [ihnp4, ucbvax, decvax, uw-beaver]!tektronix!dadla!rob > " " !psu-cs!vetterr > > "Waste is a terrible thing to mind" - NRC > (Well, they COULD have said it) Ok Rob, you've made your point. **HOWEVER**, I think that you are making broad generalizations when you type ``HOW CHRISTIAN.'' Yes, there are factions who feel this way, but there are other Christians who ARE open minded loving people. Speaking from experience David Roch ihnp4!ihlpa!droch DISCLAIMER: I am not, never have been, and never will be a Christian. <<< You can't get there from here - REM >>> (heaven maybe? :-))
megabyte@chinet.UUCP (Mark E. Sunderlin) (07/22/86)
In article <17599@ucla-cs.ARPA> oleg@ucla-cs.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev) writes: >.................... Seriously, folks, the line HAS to be drawn somewhere. >I think that line should be the "bedroom door" (figuratively speaking). It >is NOBODY's business what I do with another conscenting adult of any sex >as long as no lasting physical harm is done Oleg has a good point there. As I am prone to say: "Everyone should have the righ to do anything they want with anyone else BUT, Your right to swing your fist ends where my face starts" -- _________________________________________________________________________ UUCP: (1) seismo!why_not!scsnet!sunder Mark E. Sunderlin (2) ihnp4!chinet!megabyte aka Dr. Megabyte CIS: 74026,3235 (202) 634-2529 Quote: "I drank what? " - Socrates (9-4 EDT) Mail: IRS PM:PFR:D:NO 1111 Constitution Ave. NW Washington,DC 20224
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/22/86)
> >>In article <318@hp-sdd.UUCP> nick@hp-sdd.UUCP (Nick Flor) writes: > >>>I never said it would stop homosexual activity. But maybe it'll make them > >>>think about it a little more. Maybe it'll serve as a guideline for those > >>>youngsters in society and make them turn away from homosexual activities. > > Can you make fish swim in the air by outlawing swimming in water? How can > you make a man who is sexually interested ONLY in other men NOT want to > have sex with other men? What the anti-sodomy law will do is to push gay > men back into oscurity, make them less willing to come out and indirectly > promote the spread of AIDS by making people be afraid of seeking help and > advice. > > "Eggs can't walk. You know that!" Oleg Kiselev No, anti-sodomy laws will push gay men into prison, locked up with THOUSANDS OF HORNY MEN. This is a way to discourage homosexuality? Clayton E. Cramer "Capitalism: a private act between consenting adults"
eme@mtgzz.UUCP (e.m.eades) (07/24/86)
>>In article <318@hp-sdd.UUCP> nick@hp-sdd.UUCP (Nick Flor) writes: >>>I never said it would stop homosexual activity. But maybe it'll make them >>>think about it a little more. Maybe it'll serve as a guideline for those >>>youngsters in society and make them turn away from homosexual activities. > >Why should they? Because *you* don't approve of it? I think this is an >important point since you go on to speak about morals... > >>Perhaps you should keep in mind that the original reason this went to the >>Supreme Court in the first place was for the illegality of ORAL SEX! The >>two people charged under the Georgia law were males having oral sex. The >>Georgia law that was upheld was not an anal sex law against homosexuals, it >>was an oral and/or anal sex law against ANYONE! >> >>This includes two people of the opposite sex that are married. >> >>In this light, does it change your opinion of the ruling? Do you wish the >>government to certify ok and not ok sexual habits? [me] > >But to seriously answer your questions: >NO and YES. > >The line has to be drawn somewhere. Hasn't anyone else noticed the moral >decay in this country, or is everyone afraid of getting flamed or called >a Bible thumper? > >Whose morals would you like to impose? Congress'? Yours? Why does this >"line have to be drawn"? Because *you* don't approve of certain sexual >practices? Why can't it just be left at you have your kind of sex and >I'll have mine? It certainly can't be for health reasons, because oral >sex doesn't spread any diseases. > >I, for one, resent the government telling me and my husband what we can >and can't do in bed. Does anyone else think sexual freedom is an >unreasonable wish? > >Mikki Barry I'll certainly agree with Mikki that as long as it's private and everyone concerned is a consenting adult it's no one else's business. However, unless things have changed alot since I was in college oral sex can spread diseases. As oral sex became more popular some forms of VD which use to occur only in the crotch area began appearing around the lips and inside people's mouths. I understood that dentists can also get a form of what use to be VD on there hands from people who have gotten it in their mouths. There was a big deal made about this for a short time and a push by the health dept. and the dental societies to get dentists to wear gloves and for people to stop seeing dentists who don't wear gloves. On a slightly different but similar topic, what about the laws agains polygamy? In what way does polygamy threaten our society that it is dangerous enough to be outlawed? - E. Eades
strickln@ihlpa.UUCP (Stephen D. Stricklen) (07/24/86)
> On a slightly different but similar topic, what about the laws agains > polygamy? In what way does polygamy threaten our society that it is > dangerous enough to be outlawed? > > - E. Eades An interesting point, and I thought about this for a while. My guess is the laws were set down to protect women in a time when it was easier for men to take advantage of them. One hundred or two hundred years ago women had little recourse if they suffered abuse at the hands of their husbands. I see polygamy laws as one means of offering protection. Were our society truly free of sexual discrimination, I would see no reason to keep such laws on the books, as all parties could make the decision to enter polygamous relationships on truly free will. Steve Stricklen AT&T Bell Laboratories ihnp4!ihlpa!strickln
chelsea@dartvax.UUCP (Karen Christenson) (07/25/86)
In article <1561@ihlpa.UUCP> strickln@ihlpa.UUCP (Stephen D. Stricklen) writes: >> On a slightly different but similar topic, what about the laws agains >> polygamy? In what way does polygamy threaten our society that it is >> dangerous enough to be outlawed? >> >> - E. Eades > >An interesting point, and I thought about this for a while. My guess is the >laws were set down to protect women in a time when it was easier for men to >take advantage of them. One hundred or two hundred years ago women had >little recourse if they suffered abuse at the hands of their husbands. I see >polygamy laws as one means of offering protection. Were our society truly >free of sexual discrimination, I would see no reason to keep such laws on the >books, as all parties could make the decision to enter polygamous relation- >ships on truly free will. > >Steve Stricklen >ihnp4!ihlpa!strickln I don't see how monogamy is going to protect a woman from abusive husbands. Now with polygamy, the wives could all gang up on him. You can develop a strong argument for polygamy based on the protectionist attitudes toward women common in just about any period of history. Women need a man to provide protection and status. Women are incapable of handling their own financial affairs (remember, I'm pretending to be a protectionist. THIS IS NOT REALLY ME! Okay?). Some women manage to escape male protection - widows and single women who have no male guardians. The more women a man marries, the more he protects. Fewer poor widows and destitute spinsters become a financial burden on the community, church, state, whatever. (The term spinster came about because unmarried women in England circa 1600, I think, were required by law to do so many hours of spinning per day - to keep them out of trouble and make sure they were productive members of socity.) If you have a male-dominated society, it kind of makes sense to have the male dominate as many females as he can, no? Karen Christenson "Mostly harmless." ...!dartvax!chelsea
rjb@akgud.UUCP (rjb) (07/25/86)
Ms. Eades,
I think the laws against polygamy represent the fact that most
people are in basic agreement or at least don't care enough to
fuss about the restriction in freedom imposed by not allowing
polygamy. I think this law is an example of our majority Christian
culture being coded into our law.
--
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}vis@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Tom Courtney) (07/25/86)
In article <1561@ihlpa.UUCP> strickln@ihlpa.UUCP (Stephen D. Stricklen) writes: >> On a slightly different but similar topic, what about the laws agains >> polygamy? In what way does polygamy threaten our society that it is >> dangerous enough to be outlawed? >> >> - E. Eades > >An interesting point, and I thought about this for a while. My guess is the >laws were set down to protect women in a time when it was easier for men to >take advantage of them. I find it interesting that most people mean "multiple wives" by polygamy, and that the notion of "multiple husbands" is much rarer. I wonder what causes this? I'm not sure polygamy laws particularly protect women. Consider a culture that uses automobiles. Who benefits by having every family own two? The seller does. Increased demand means you can get a higher price. Now consider a culture where multiple wives are the norm. Women who are interested in getting married can shop around for a better grade of husband, get better terms on the marraige compact, etc.
cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl) (07/28/86)
In article <930@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU> vis@trillian.UUCP (Tom Courtney) writes: >In article <1561@ihlpa.UUCP> strickln@ihlpa.UUCP (Stephen D. Stricklen) writes: >>> On a slightly different but similar topic, what about the laws agains >>> polygamy? In what way does polygamy threaten our society that it is >>> dangerous enough to be outlawed? >>> - E. Eades >> >>An interesting point, and I thought about this for a while. My guess is the >>laws were set down to protect women in a time when it was easier for men to >>take advantage of them. > >I find it interesting that most people mean "multiple wives" by polygamy, and >that the notion of "multiple husbands" is much rarer. I wonder what causes >this? In Tibet, Polyandry was practiced because property is passed down through the women. They can have as many husbands as they want. In some areas, the rule was that when a woman married, she also got *all* of his brothers in the bargain. (A bride for seven brothers!) Cheryl
licsak@hsi.UUCP (Don Licsak) (07/29/86)
> > You can develop a strong argument for polygamy based on the protectionist > attitudes toward women common in just about any period of history. Women need > a man to provide protection and status. Women are incapable of handling their > own financial affairs (remember, I'm pretending to be a protectionist. THIS > IS NOT REALLY ME! Okay?). Some women manage to escape male protection - > widows and single women who have no male guardians. The more women a man > marries, the more he protects. Fewer poor widows and destitute spinsters > become a financial burden on the community, church, state, whatever. (The > term spinster came about because unmarried women in England circa 1600, I > think, were required by law to do so many hours of spinning per day - to keep > them out of trouble and make sure they were productive members of socity.) > If you have a male-dominated society, it kind of makes sense to have the male > dominate as many females as he can, no? > > Karen Christenson > "Mostly harmless." ...!dartvax!chelsea Speaking only for myself, monogamy is the only way to go. I have enough problems maintaining a working relationship with one wife, never mind compounding the situation! We do live in a male dominated society. However, don't forget that saying about "the power behind the throne." It's awesome! -- Don Licsak ihnp4!hsi!licsak Health Systems International New Haven, CT 06511 "I'm the person your mother warned you about"
linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) (07/30/86)
> In article <857@unirot.UUCP> ooblick@unirot.UUCP (Mikki Barry) writes: > >I, for one, resent the government telling me and my husband what we can > >and can't do in bed. Does anyone else think sexual freedom is an > >unreasonable wish? > > I am just wondering: don't heterosexual Georgians ever have oral and anal > sex? I remember reading in the newspaper that a heterosexual couple had originally participated in the challenge to the sodomy law. Their complaint was thrown out by the court, because it was determined that there was virtually no chance they would ever be prosecuted for sodomy. This raised the question of equal protection under the law. Did anyone else read the same thing?
ins_aprm@jhunix.UUCP (Paul R Markowitz) (07/30/86)
In article <12507@amdcad.UUCP> linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) writes: >I remember reading in the newspaper that a heterosexual couple had >originally participated in the challenge to the sodomy law. Their >complaint was thrown out by the court, because it was determined that >there was virtually no chance they would ever be prosecuted for sodomy. >This raised the question of equal protection under the law. > >Did anyone else read the same thing? This doesn't raise the question of equal protection because the homosexuals involved in the Hardwick case were NOT prosecuted. The charges against them involving sodomy were DROPPED before they ever got to the police station.... They took the case to court anyway. The basis for the swing vote on teh Supreme Court (I don't remember which judge) was that the law has never been and will never be prosecuted. Paul -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Paul Markowitz "A pessimist is someone who won't call on G-d because he is certain he will get an answering machine." seismo!umcp-cs!jhunix!ins_aprm bitnet: ins_aprm at jhuvms arpanet: ins_aprm%jhunix.BITNET@wiscvm.ARPA
sandersr@ecn-pc.UUCP (Robert C Sanders) (08/02/86)
In article <3282@jhunix.UUCP> ins_aprm@jhunix.ARPA (Paul R Markowitz) writes: >[...] The basis for the swing >vote on teh Supreme Court (I don't remember which judge) was that the >law has never been and will never be prosecuted. > You ever hear about the judge in Alabama that was just procesuuted for child molestation, AND COMMITTING SODOMY?! The law is used; even though in this case it was a minor charge compared to the others. -- Continuing Engineering Education Telecommunications Purdue University ...!ihnp4!pur-ee!pc-ecn!sandersr Let's make like a BSD process, and go FORK-OFF !! -- bob (and "make" a few children while we're at it ...)
bl@hplabsb.UUCP (Bruce T. Lowerre) (08/05/86)
In article <3282@jhunix.UUCP>, ins_aprm@jhunix.UUCP (Paul R Markowitz) writes: > In article <12507@amdcad.UUCP> linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) writes: ... > The charges against > them involving sodomy were DROPPED before they ever got to the police > station.... They took the case to court anyway. The basis for the swing > vote on the Supreme Court (I don't remember which judge) was that the > law has never been and will never be prosecuted. Thank you, now I understand. Because the law was not prosecuted the S.C. says it is NOT unconstitutional. If the law had been prosecuted then the law WOULD have been unconstitutional. Makes perfect sense, thanks for clearing it up.
timlee@bnrmtv.UUCP (Timothy Lee) (08/06/86)
> In article <3282@jhunix.UUCP>, ins_aprm@jhunix.UUCP (Paul R Markowitz) writes: > > In article <12507@amdcad.UUCP> linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) writes: > ... > > The charges against > > them involving sodomy were DROPPED before they ever got to the police > > station.... They took the case to court anyway. The basis for the swing > > vote on the Supreme Court (I don't remember which judge) was that the > > law has never been and will never be prosecuted. > > Thank you, now I understand. Because the law was not prosecuted the > S.C. says it is NOT unconstitutional. If the law had been prosecuted > then the law WOULD have been unconstitutional. Makes perfect sense, > thanks for clearing it up. Actually the swing justice (I think it was the Chief Justice, but not sure) said that the court can only rule on the constitutionality if there was actually a case where the law was used to prosecute. Since no prosecution came from this, the justice ruled that it wasn't the court's business at this time (maybe later... when a sodomy case was actually prosecuted). Still sounds fuzzy, though. The other 8 justices, of course, treated it like a regular case.
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (08/06/86)
> > The charges against > > them involving sodomy were DROPPED before they ever got to the police > > station.... They took the case to court anyway. The basis for the swing > > vote on the Supreme Court (I don't remember which judge) was that the > > law has never been and will never be prosecuted. > > Thank you, now I understand. Because the law was not prosecuted the > S.C. says it is NOT unconstitutional. If the law had been prosecuted > then the law WOULD have been unconstitutional. Makes perfect sense, > thanks for clearing it up. Bull. The Court did not find that the law is constitutional; it found that the challenge was insufficient to declare the law unconstitutional on. The Supreme Court is not an expert witness; the Constition is not an encyclopedia. Both involve processes, not simply facts and opinions. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat (Please mail to mtx5b!mat, NOT mtx5a! mat, or to mtx5a!mtx5b!mat) (mtx5b!mole-end!mat will also reach me) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (08/08/86)
> I find it interesting that most people mean "multiple wives" by polygamy, and > that the notion of "multiple husbands" is much rarer. I wonder what causes > this? > > I'm not sure polygamy laws particularly protect women. Consider a culture that >uses automobiles. Who benefits by having every family own two? The seller does. >Increased demand means you can get a higher price. Now consider a culture where > multiple wives are the norm. Women who are interested in getting married can > shop around for a better grade of husband, get better terms on the marraige > compact, etc. First question is easy: polygamy means many wives. Marriage with many husbands is called polyandry (polyandria?). As far as a better deal for women because of polygamy, I would be sceptical. Consider divorce: the complexity would grow exponentially. Also, it would be possibly easier to get a fraction of an attractive husband, but more difficult to get a whole husband. I think that marriage laws are in a sence regulating the possible status of individuals concerning taxes and benefits. Allowing polygamy would throw IRS, employer benefit offices and welfare administration into a tailspin. (For this reason Mormons were banished: people did not have IRS, etc., and they knew how difficult it would be to create those institutions would polygamy be allowed. One of the cases when progress was made possible by religious intolerance.) Piotr Berman
rob@ptsfb.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (08/09/86)
>> I find it interesting that most people mean "multiple wives" by polygamy, and >> that the notion of "multiple husbands" is much rarer. I wonder what causes >First question is easy: polygamy means many wives. Marriage with many >husbands is called polyandry (polyandria?). polyandry multiple husbands polygyny multiple wives polygamy multiple spouses -- Rob Bernardo, San Ramon, CA (415) 823-2417 {ihnp4|dual|qantel}!ptsfa!rob