Supreme Court Ruling on Sodomy
Nick Flor
>
>>
>> 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
Mikki Barry
>>>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
Wendy Thrash
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
michael girard
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
Nick Flor
>In article <3...@hp-sdd.UUCP> ni...@hp-sdd.UUCP (Nick Flor) writes:
>>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.
>
>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?
>
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?
Wimpy Math Grad Student
>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."
Mikki Barry
>>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
Jeff Winslow
>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
Wimpy Math Grad Student
>>Do you wish the government to certify ok and not ok sexual habits?
>
OK. Based on what? What you like, or what I like? Why does what *you*
like matter more than what I like? And just what the hell is it your
business anyway?
Perhaps you favor majority rule? Then you would lose on this one. Even
so, I really don't think you would want majority rule deciding these sort
of questions. What if a law was passed to decide if Nick Flor should be
allowed to even have sex or not? Tell me why if that wouldn't bother you
or not?
On which date is it OK to first kiss? According to you, and apparently
the Supreme Court, it is perfectly proper for Georgia to regulate that.
What else would you like the government to certify? Hair length? Beards?
Your brand of coffee? What TV shows you are allowed to watch? How many
hours of sleep you get a night?
One of the things that makes this country GREAT, Nick, is something I
find quite precious: FREEDOM. If you don't know that you've got it, you
may somebody learn that you don't have it anymore.
>The line has to be drawn somewhere.
Yes. In front of my house.
> Hasn't anyone else noticed the moral
>decay in this country,
What moral decay? If you mean people doing things in their bedrooms that
you don't like, then yes, I've noticed people like you trying to snoop in
where they don't belong. It makes me sick.
> or is everyone afraid of getting flamed or called
>a Bible thumper?
I don't care if you are a Bible thumper. But come around my place and I
would probably scare the living Jesus out of you. I've done it to others.
It's a lot of fun, actually.
And keep your Bible OUT of my government. As George Washington said, the
United States is NOT a Christian nation.
ucbvax!brahms!weemba Wimpy Grad Student/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
The good Christian should beware of mathematicians and all those who make
empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have
made a covenant with the Devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in
the bonds of Hell ... -Saint Augustine
Rob Vetter
>
> In discussing the recent supreme court ruling regarding sodomy,
>the discussion on the net became an argument about homosexuality:
>
>> think about it a little more.
>> >
>> >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)
Karen Christenson
>>
>>government to certify ok and not ok sexual habits?
>>
>of their holiest vows? Melanie and the gang of 4 should appreciate this
>ruling.
>
>NO and YES.
>
>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
th...@magic.uucp
> In article <8...@unirot.UUCP> oob...@unirot.UUCP (Mikki Barry) writes:
> >In article <3...@hp-sdd.UUCP> ni...@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
th...@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.)
r...@dadla.uucp
>In article <8...@unirot.UUCP> oob...@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?
>>
>of their holiest vows? Melanie and the gang of 4 should appreciate this
>ruling.
>
>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.
ecf...@jhunix.uucp
>
>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?
>
>..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
rob...@weitek.uucp
>> >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 <8...@unirot.UUCP> oob...@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
ol...@ucla-cs.uucp
>>>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 <8...@unirot.UUCP> oob...@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
c23...@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
d...@allegra.uucp
>----------
>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
oob...@unirot.uucp
>>> >In article <3...@hp-sdd.UUCP> ni...@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 <8...@unirot.UUCP> oob...@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)
-----------------
Mark E. Sunderlin
>.................... 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
Clayton Cramer
> >>>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.
>
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"
e.m.eades
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
Stephen D. Stricklen
> 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
Karen Christenson
>> 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
>ships on truly free will.
>
>Steve Stricklen
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?
rjb
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}
Tom Courtney
>> 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.
Linda Seltzer
> >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?
Paul R Markowitz
>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...@wiscvm.ARPA
Robert C Sanders
>[...] 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 ...)
Bruce T. Lowerre
> In article <12...@amdcad.UUCP> li...@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
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.
Timothy Lee
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.
m.terribile
> > 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)
,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
Piotr Berman
> 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 Bernardo
>> that the notion of "multiple husbands" is much rarer. I wonder what causes
>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
Dave Hurst
> First question is easy: polygamy means many wives. Marriage with many
> husbands is called polyandry (polyandria?).
>
definitions, polygamy means many spouses (spice? :-) Polygyny means
many wives. Polyandry means many husbands. (I don't have a dictionary handy
right now, but I think these are correct.)
--
email: ...ihnp4!grc97!hurst David Hurst, KSC
phone: (312) 640-2044 Gould Research Center
flames: /dev/null
#include <std.disclaimer>
All hail Discordia! Kallisti!