ambar@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Jean Marie Diaz) (07/08/86)
In article <146@ozdaltx.UUCP> root@ozdaltx.UUCP (root) writes: >This decision effects EVERYONE, not just a chosen few who >partake of a particular life-style. As it stands now, if you >live in Georgia, and you and your mate enjoy making love in >other than the conventional "missionary" position, YOU ARE >CONSIDERED A CRIMINAL! And, the local authorities are now >given the license to actually come into your home and arrest >you both. This is not the only piece of flamage that I've seen on the net claiming that the Georgia sodomy law applies to both homo- and heterosexuals. However, I read an article in the Boston Globe which said that the law only applied to oral/genital contact BETWEEN MEMBERS OF THE SAME SEX. Could someone please confirm this? If true, it seems that much of the hysteria coming from straights is highly exaggerated. -- AMBAR "I need something to change your mind...."
henry@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Henry Mensch) (07/09/86)
In article <2490@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> ambar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Jean Marie Diaz) writes: > >This is not the only piece of flamage that I've seen on the net >claiming that the Georgia sodomy law applies to both homo- and >heterosexuals. However, I read an article in the Boston Globe which >said that the law only applied to oral/genital contact BETWEEN MEMBERS >OF THE SAME SEX. The Georgia law applies to everyone without regard to sex or sexual orientation. The Supreme Court decision deals particularly with homosexuals; they chose not to consider similar acts among heterosexual couples now. See the editorial in today's (8 July '86) *Boston Globe* for more. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Henry Mensch | Technical Writer | MIT/Project Athena henry@athena.mit.edu ..!mit-eddie!mit-athena!henry
gordon@cae780.UUCP (07/09/86)
In article <2490@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> ambar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Jean Marie Diaz) writes: >This is not the only piece of flamage that I've seen on the net >claiming that the Georgia sodomy law applies to both homo- and >heterosexuals. However, I read an article in the Boston Globe which >said that the law only applied to oral/genital contact BETWEEN MEMBERS >OF THE SAME SEX. > >Could someone please confirm this? If true, it seems that much of the >hysteria coming from straights is highly exaggerated. Right. As long as it's just "them", and not "us", "we" have nothing to fear... Of course, all the Supreme Court did say is that there is no Constitutional Right to oral/genital or genital/anal contact. That's not too surprising either, is it? The implications may be greater than that, but the actual decision isn't more than that. FROM: Brian G. Gordon, CAE Systems Division of Tektronix, Inc. UUCP: tektronix!cae780!gordon {ihnp4, decvax!decwrl}!amdcad!cae780!gordon {hplabs, resonex, qubix, leadsv, decwrl}!cae780!gordon USNAIL: 5302 Betsy Ross Drive/#58137, Santa Clara, CA 95052-8137 AT&T: (408)748-4817 [direct] (408)727-1234 [switchboard]
valerie@net1.UCSD.EDU (Valerie Polichar) (07/10/86)
In article <2490@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> ambar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Jean Marie Diaz) writes: >...I read an article in the Boston Globe which >said that the law only applied to oral/genital contact BETWEEN MEMBERS >OF THE SAME SEX... >If true, it seems that much of the >hysteria coming from straights is highly exaggerated. > > AMBAR No, no! At least some straights are enraged because certain human rights are being infriged upon. Whether or not we may personally exercise those rights is moot; we still consider them equally discriminatory and awful! We believe these rights *should not be controlled by the state*. (Gee, I /hope/ I'm speaking for more than just me.) Valerie -- Valerie Polichar sdcsvax!net1!valerie net1!valerie@SDCSVAX.UCSD.EDU This is a fake signature. If it were a real signature, you would have fled, terror-striken, from your terminal.
nazgul@apollo.uucp (Kee Hinckley) (07/10/86)
In article <2490@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> ambar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Jean Marie Diaz) writes: > heterosexuals. However, I read an article in the Boston Globe which > said that the law only applied to oral/genital contact BETWEEN MEMBERS > OF THE SAME SEX. > > Could someone please confirm this? If true, it seems that much of the > hysteria coming from straights is highly exaggerated. The LAW applies to both. The COURT restricted its ruling to homosexuals and explictly left open the question whether a state can restrict heterosexual sodomy. Where they get off with such blatent discrimination I do not know. -kee -- Mail is welcome... ...{yale,uw-beaver,decvax!wanginst}!apollo!nazgul Apollo Computer, Chelmsford MA. (617) 256-6600 x7587 There's so many different worlds, so many different suns And we have just one world, but we live in different ones. Dire Straits - "Brothers in Arms"
pete@valid.UUCP (Pete Zakel) (07/10/86)
> In article <146@ozdaltx.UUCP> root@ozdaltx.UUCP (root) writes: > >This decision effects EVERYONE, not just a chosen few who > >partake of a particular life-style. As it stands now, if you > >live in Georgia, and you and your mate enjoy making love in > >other than the conventional "missionary" position, YOU ARE > >CONSIDERED A CRIMINAL! And, the local authorities are now > >given the license to actually come into your home and arrest > >you both. > > This is not the only piece of flamage that I've seen on the net > claiming that the Georgia sodomy law applies to both homo- and > heterosexuals. However, I read an article in the Boston Globe which > said that the law only applied to oral/genital contact BETWEEN MEMBERS > OF THE SAME SEX. > > Could someone please confirm this? If true, it seems that much of the > hysteria coming from straights is highly exaggerated. > -- > > AMBAR The law as written can be applied to hetero- OR homo-sexuals. The Georgia DA stated that the law would only be applied to homosexuals. The Supreme Court only said the law was constitutional as applies to homosexuals. The majority opinion specifically stated that they were not commenting on the laws constitutionality as applies to heterosexuals. So . . . what? Since the law is on the books, if Georgia and the Supreme Court change their opinion in the future the law COULD be applied to hetero-sexuals. And even if the law only applies to homo-sexuals IT IS STILL A DANGEROUS LAW! Especially because the law can be used to hassle a group of otherwise law-abiding Americans based on their sexual orientation. If homosexuals can't have oral or anal intercourse, WHAT'S LEFT? -- -Pete Zakel (..!{hplabs,amd,pyramid,ihnp4}!pesnta!valid!pete)
glenn@c3pe.UUCP (D. Glenn Arthur Jr.) (07/11/86)
In article <165@net1.UCSD.EDU>, valerie@net1.UCSD.EDU (Valerie Polichar) writes: > No, no! At least some straights are enraged because certain human rights > are being infriged upon. Whether or not we may personally exercise those > rights is moot; we still consider them equally discriminatory and awful! > We believe these rights *should not be controlled by the state*. > (Gee, I /hope/ I'm speaking for more than just me.) You are speaking for more than just you. There are both the "That is wrong" reaction and the "What will they attack next?" reaction involved. For myself, the former is the stronger right now, but in either case, as a 'straight' I am concerned even though "only the gays" are immediately affected. (A point that can be argued.) The next step is "So what are we going to do about it?" This being a democracy, we cannot just sit on our behinds and moan if it is important. D. Glenn Arthur Jr.
george@sysvis.UUCP (07/11/86)
> This is not the only piece of flamage that I've seen on the net > claiming that the Georgia sodomy law applies to both homo- and > heterosexuals. However, I read an article in the Boston Globe which > said that the law only applied to oral/genital contact BETWEEN MEMBERS > OF THE SAME SEX. > Could someone please confirm this? If true, it seems that much of the > hysteria coming from straights is highly exaggerated. It seems to me that the real problem here is that a precedent establishes gradual encroachment of individual liberty and freedom of choice on many levels of private life. Legally, if governmental agencies are given the OK to legislate (or ENFORCE) individual behavior, no matter how heinous that behavior is to you or me, then the incline to 1984 type control has just begun. I don't feel hysterical at all and I have no personal stake in the outcome of this particular law. This doesn't exclude me from being a truly concerned citizen who doesn't want a governmmental agency to make his moral decisions for him in any way, form, shape, or color. Neither now, nor in the future.
tp@ndm20 (07/12/86)
>heterosexuals. However, I read an article in the Boston Globe which >said that the law only applied to oral/genital contact BETWEEN MEMBERS >OF THE SAME SEX. According to the newspaper report I read, the Supreme Court explicitly declined to consider whether or not their ruling applied to heterosexuals. The law the upheld, however, does apply to gays and straights alike. >Could someone please confirm this? If true, it seems that much of the >hysteria coming from straights is highly exaggerated. Some straights think gays are people, too. The ruling is atrocious, even if it only applies to one-legged black jewish gays with spanish surnames who are children of Viet Nam veterans. So are the other supreme court rulings I've heard lately. Does anyone know if there is ANY way to recall a supreme court justice, as there is for most of their state counterparts? Terry Poot Nathan D. Maier Consulting Engineers (214)739-4741 UUCP: {seismo!c1east | cbosgd!sun | ihnp4}!convex!infoswx!ndm20!tp CSNET: ndm20!tp@smu ARPA: ndm20!tp%smu@csnet-relay.ARPA
raan@techunix.BITNET (Ran Ever-Hadani) (07/15/86)
I always thought MY country was rules by religious conservative laws. Congratulations, American brothers, you outdid us this time... -- Ran, Haifa, Israel.
chuck@adiron.UUCP (Chuck Ferrara) (07/24/86)
In article <2490@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU>, ambar@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Jean Marie Diaz) writes: > > heterosexuals. However, I read an article in the Boston Globe which > said that the law only applied to oral/genital contact BETWEEN MEMBERS > OF THE SAME SEX. > > Could someone please confirm this? If true, it seems that much of the > hysteria coming from straights is highly exaggerated. > Jean, Does this mean that the hysteria of WHITES against apartheid is also exaggerated? After all it only applies to the basic rights of BLACKS. In fact it only applies to SOUTH AFRICAN blacks, so why should AMERICAN blacks care? Just because a law only infringes on someone else's personal rights doesn't mean that it is of no concern to you. It's still very wrong! Attitudes such as yours are extremely self centered and narrow minded. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate it much if I (as a male) made an equally callous statement about discrimination against women. As a heterosexual male, I am quite outraged by this particular ruling and I don't consider my feelings to be exaggerated hysteria. -- Chuck Ferrara PAR Microsystems UUCP: ihnp4\!mcnc\!duke\!adiron 220 Seneca Tpk.(Rt. 5) (315) 738-0600 (ext. 676) New Hartford, NY 13413
davidsen@steinmetz.UUCP (Davidsen) (08/04/86)
Perhaps now that states have the right to control what we do in the
bedroom (or wherever your favorite recreational area may be) we may see
notes in job postings indicating what sodemy laws are in effect. I can
see it all now:
"East Armpit has a theater which shows films both Friday and Saturday
night, has professional wrestling every month live, and has a good book
rack at the drugstore for the literary types. There are no state,
county, or local sodemy laws. Equal opportunity employes m/f/h/q/p/t"
Or in other parts of the country laws prohibiting unmarried persons
from sharing lodging might be passed, or laws on what positions may be
used, limiting not only what touches what, but how. "You got a bad back,
kid? Tough! We saw her on top, that's a felony in this town, pervert!"
With the middle of the country passing sodomy and pornography laws,
and the coasts (NY, CA, etc) passing laws against homosexual
persecution and discrimination, the next civil war may be the middle
against the coasts. I hope I'm kidding, but the liberals are willing to
let people practice chastity, while the fundamentalists (at least the
most visible kind) seem to justify violence because it's "God's will".
Where else do arsonists who burn planned parenthood offices (not
clinics, offices) regard themselves as the "good guys".
If you consider that Lebanon was a modern country with a stable
economy only 30 years ago, can someone please convince me that issues
of religion can't tear apart a modern country?
I think that with the new Supreme Court this is not going to be the
land of the free anymore, I hope I'm wrong.
--
-bill davidsen
ihnp4!seismo!rochester!steinmetz!--\
\
unirot ------------->---> crdos1!davidsen
chinet ------/
sixhub ---------------------/ (davidsen@ge-crd.ARPA)
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward"