"David Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:2tgPa.99607$98.3538314@twister.socal.rr.com...
>
> "Barry White" <Singingin@theafterlife.com> wrote in message
> news:IuZOa.18$OP.7@fed1read04...
> >
> > "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
> > news:newscache$2q1rhh$npi$1@news.ipinc.net...
> > >
> > > "Earle Horton" <enfermero_diabolico@registerednurses.com> wrote in
> message
> > > news:bec098$369hn$1@ID-147790.news.dfncis.de...
> > >
> > > > No, you cannot argue for laws against incest on the basis of science
> and
> > > > reproductive issues. The only justification for such laws is that
> most
> > > > people find incest disgusting.
> >
> > If you outlawed incest, what would the Morons (mormons) do???
> >
> >
> Huh? Where did that come from?
>
>

It's the sport of choice among latter day loonies out west; marry your 13 year old
daughter and move to Colorado City.


 

"'nuther Bob" <noonehere@thisaddress.com> wrote in message
news:d6iogvkgahkfam152ltunf74r2c3a6ko99@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 09:15:13 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Your meds are wearing off.
>
> You know, some people think top posters who fail to quote who
> and what they are responding to are total morons. Not me, I just
> think they're lazy.
>
Get over it, the original poster made a one liner on top of another one
liner.


> >They can behave
> >that way if they want, but the rest of us have the right to be totally
and
> >utterly repulsed by that behavior.
>
> Exactly. I too am repulsed. I'm also repulsed by the idea of raising
> a pig on a farm for a year and then personally butchering it. That
> doesn't mean it should be outlawed. Some people are repulsed by the
> idea that we eat meat. Again, that is no reason to outlaw it.
>

Most of us accept eating meat, but we have trouble with sexual deviation. We
have no constitutional right to eat meat, but we now have a constitutional
right to sexual deviation. Do we also have a constitutional right to other
forms of sexual misbehavior, such as porn and prostitution, when all we have
is consenting adults? Do we have a constitutional right to sexual
misbehavior among adults and minors even when the minors consent, indeed
even when the minor instegates the misbehavior?



> >I do not begin to suggest that we should hunt them down, but I do suggest
> >that when they are caught then we should be able to punish if we want.
>
> Apparently the Constitution disagrees with you, according to one
> of the most conservative courts we've had in many years.
>
I think the judges made a poor decision.



> >If one state wants to allow that sort of thing, then that stat can have
them
> >all, if another state does not want that sort of thing taking place, they
> >should be able prosecute. >This is not a federal government issue, it is
a
> >states' rights issue.
>
> When the rights and liberties of the citizens come into question, the
> constitution (and the supreme court) prevails. The Supreme Court
> felt that this was an issue of personal rights. Check the Bill of
> Rights for more information.
>
Don't some states have differing levels of acceptable behavior? Perhaps
California might allow the behavior that Texas residents do not accept,
can't each state have different laws according to what they think is right
or wrong? In the case at hand, the gay men were not being sought for gay
activity, they were being sought for something else and just happened to be
caught engaging in what Texas thinks should be illegal. In California, they
might have gotten away with the behavior, maybe the police would have even
waited outside for them to finish.



> >don't we need to protect the privacy rights of adults with minors,
>
> The court ruled on consenting adults. Sex between adults and minors
> would not be allowed based on the government's duty to protect the
> rights of the children - who are also citizens.
>
I agree with what you say, my point is that we have open the door to a
blurring of what is acceptable and what is not.


> >or johns and hookers?
>
> That behavior is not subject to Federal law it is state law.
>
The guys that brought the case were arguing that Texas law was in error, not
federal laws. The court has struck down a state law.


> > then there is an equal
> >right to violate children or to entertain hookers.
>
> No to the first, yes to the second, see above.
>
> Bob
Today the first still stands, but what will happen tomorrow? And, should we
set the stage for allowing sexual misconduct between consenting adults to
the level and status of a "right"? I think not. We don't need the thought
police searching out those that engage inmisconduct, but when they stumble
upon that misconduct, they ought to be able to make the arrest.



 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:behj36$s9i$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vgog5jqf07phcd@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Your meds are wearing off.
> >
> >The court decision has to do with men taking it in the ass, and their
> >constitutional right to behave that way. They ought not have the right to
> >violate the natural desire of men to be attracted to women. They can
behave
> >that way if they want, but the rest of us have the right to be totally
and
> >utterly repulsed by that behavior.
>
> I'm repulsed by people talking on cell phones in restaurants. That's
> despicable behavior. Does that give me the right to discriminate against
> them? Refuse to rent to them? Refuse to hire them?
>
People with cell phones are not asking for equal rights solely because they
have a phone, sexual deviates are asking for these rights solely based on
their sexual preference.

To be perfeclty clear, I don't care that sexual deviates are deviated, I
just don't want to know that they are. Take your sexual preference off the
table, it is not a matter for public discussion. I don't want goon squads
chasing the deviates down, but if the deviates get caught in a compromising
position, they too bad, they are busted.



> >
> >I do not begin to suggest that we should hunt them down, but I do suggest
> >that when they are caught then we should be able to punish if we want. If
> >one state wants to allow that sort of thing, then that stat can have them
> >all, if another state does not want that sort of thing taking place, they
> >should be able prosecute.
> >
> >This is not a federal government issue, it is a states' rights issue.
>
>
> US constitution trumps states' rights.
>
>
That is my point, shouldn't states be able to have laws of what is
acceptable behavior within their borders? Shouldn't cities and town be able
to have laws about what is acceptable behavior within thier borders? Nevada
seems to think that gambling is OK, why don't the other 49 states have to
accept this as acceptable behavior? We all know that some states do allow
gaming, notably though they only allow in a handful of cities, not the
entire state. So, we can legislate morality, but we can not legislate sexual
behavior, don't you find that odd?

The court said that Texas can not have a different law than everybody else.



> >If we
> >have to ensure privacy rights between consenting stool pushers, don't we
> >need to protect the privacy rights of adults with minors, or johns and
> >hookers? If there is a "right" to pushing stools, then there is an equal
> >right to violate children or to entertain hookers.
>
> That's idiotic.
>

I agree that it is idiotic, but it is in our future. We will see some
liberal lawyer point to this decision to say that consenting adults are
sheilded from all manner of enforcement efforts.





 

> > I do not begin to suggest that we should hunt them down, but I do
suggest
> > that when they are caught then we should be able to punish if we want.
>
> Same difference. Punish them for *what*, exactly? Why, in your view,
> should whatever they're caught at be punishable? Because you're repulsed
> by it? If that's it, then I hope you're paying very close attention to
> every little piece of your own behavior, because if I catch you doing
> something I find repulsive, then I might demand the right to punish you if
> I want. Are you sure that's the kind of society you want?
>
States ought to be able to define acceptable behavior within their borders.
Texas had a more stringent definition that most other states, and this was
challenged - Texas lost. The decision is that states can not define
acceptable behavior, or abnormal behavior.

I don't want anybody prosecuted because I alone find the behavior repulsive,
I want people prosecuted because the community finds the behavior repulsive,
or the state finds it repulsive. Texans shouldn't have to accept behavior
that California accepts, for example. California shouldn't have to accept
what Texans find acceptable either. If we all have to accept what another
state will accept, then we may as well start building casinos from coast to
coast because Nevada has them from border to border.



> > This is not a federal government issue, it is a states' rights issue.
>
> The same argument was used -- unsuccessfully -- on matters such as racial
> segregation, women's voting rights, interracial marriage and so forth.
>
Human rights and sexual preference are hardly the same thing.



> > If we have to ensure privacy rights between consenting stool pushers,
>
> So, which of the following applies to you (pick only one):
>
> 1) You never engage in sexual practices that I might find repulsive.
>
> 2) You have no sex life.
>

#1, I don't engage in sex behavior that would lead me to being jailed. That
was easy.





> > don't we need to protect the privacy rights of adults with minors,
>
> Of course not. Minors aren't adults.
>
> > or johns and hookers?
>
> That's a question of state law, because it involves contracted services.
> Most states say that kind of transaction (money for sex) isn't OK; some
> states say it's OK.
>
Texas sodomy law was/is also a question of state law.



> > If there is a right to [homosexual sex] then
> > there is an equal right to violate children or to entertain hookers.
>
> How, in your mind, does one follow from the other?
>
I do not say that the jump is valid, I only predict that somebody will make
the jump and they will use this decision as the precedent.

If we have protected rights to sexual misconduct (as is defined by the vast
majority of the world population) between two men, or two women, then the
jump will be made to the same protected status for other types of sexual
misconduct behind closed doors. The closed door becomes the barrier to the
acceptability, if the door is open then the behavior is not acceptable, but
if the door is closed then it is OK. Before long, an adult will say that the
girl came on to him, and the door was closed so it was OK. We might even
know that the guy had the girl several times over many weeks, or months, and
she kept coming back - therefore she consented. She might have even
instigated the relationship and drug the guy into it even when he knew it
was wrong. But, the door was closed so it should be OK. _He_ didn't do
anything wrong because she started it, and kept coming back.



> > This is a bad decision
>
> You're welcome to that view, but be advised that you've so far failed to
> put forth even one cogent argument to support your opinion. Furthermore,
> you've failed to elucidate how the decision affects you in the slightest
> (I'm assuming you're a heterosexual).
>
> DS
>
The court has struck down the right of a state to legislate its own moral
behavior.


 

> "The currently sitting court is very conservative.
> Every
> time they are forced by the Constitution to issue a ruling that is the
least
> bit
> liberal, they make sure it can't be used to set precident. Every time
they
> are
> able to issue a ruling that is conservative, they make sure it CAN be used
> to
> set future precident.
>
> Over time, it is setting up a framework that will make it more and more
> impossible to get any kind of rulings that are in favor of the least
little
> bit
> of personal freedom. After all that's what all this liberal vs
conservative
> bull**** really boils down to, liberals want total personal freedom,
> conservatives want total control of people's lives by the state. Either
> extreme is terrible, of course.
>

I disagree. In theory, the liberal / conservative thing is mostly about the
role and scope of the federal government. In most of these morality cases
the issue centers around whether state or local legislatures can pass such
laws. Liberals tend to look for ways the federal government can expand it's
jurisdiction on such morality issues. Conservatives tend to view the
federal government as being constitutionally limited, unable to impose
itself on local jurisdictions.

>
> From a historical perspective, the US Supreme Court has hardly ever
> been at the forefront of expanding personal freedoms. The conservatives
> like to tell people that they are, just because of Roe vs Wade. But don't
> ever forget that the US Supreme Court never freed the slaves, the
> executive branch of the government did that. By contrast, the Court
> helped to _strengthen_ the legal teeth of slavery. If you view the Roe vs
> Wade decision in the historical context, you will quickly see that the few
> liberal years of the court then were an aberration.
>

What you have to remember is that it's not the job of the Court to "expand
personal freedoms" (read expand federal jurisdiction over local
jurisdiction). As repugnant as slavery is, the court found no consitutional
powers granted to the federal government to prohibit states from allowing
it. It was left to the legislature and the states to amend the constitution
giving the courts the ability to rule in slavery cases. Of course, we all
know it almost tore the union apart. One might argue that it would have
been better for the courts to "find" a prohibition against slavery in the
constitution and spare us the result of Dred Scott but, assuming the court
was technically correct in it's ruling, it set the stage for a constitional
amendment prohibiting slavery leaving no question as to it's
constitutionality.

In Roe v. Wade, the courts "found" an implied right that states could not
violate (right to privacy) and thus expanded it's jurisdiction over states
without legislation. This leaves one to wonder what other things can be
"found" in the constitution allowing the federal government to usurp power
from the local jurisdictions. You might think of Roe v. Wade as "expanding"
your personal freedom because the ruling went in your direction, but the
true impact is a Judicial branch that can impose law based on popular /
political views rather than interpret law based on a technical analysis of
the law.


 

"Barry White" <Singingin@theafterlife.com> wrote in message
news:xzZOa.24$OP.2@fed1read04...
>
> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:vgog5jqf07phcd@corp.supernews.com...
> > Your meds are wearing off.
> >
> > The court decision has to do with men taking it in the ass, and their
> > constitutional right to behave that way. They ought not have the right
to
> > violate the natural desire of men to be attracted to women. They can
behave
> > that way if they want, but the rest of us have the right to be totally
and
> > utterly repulsed by that behavior.
> >
> > I do not begin to suggest that we should hunt them down, but I do
suggest
> > that when they are caught then we should be able to punish if we want.
If
> > one state wants to allow that sort of thing, then that stat can have
them
> > all, if another state does not want that sort of thing taking place,
they
> > should be able prosecute.
> >
> > This is not a federal government issue, it is a states' rights issue. If
we
> > have to ensure privacy rights between consenting stool pushers, don't we
> > need to protect the privacy rights of adults with minors, or johns and
> > hookers? If there is a "right" to pushing stools, then there is an equal
> > right to violate children or to entertain hookers.
> >
> > This is a bad decision, and has nothing at all to do with your assertion
> > that we are good at killing and blowing things up. BTW, if you want to
> > praise killing and blowing things up, then praise the arabs. Asshole.
> >
>
> That's a lot of good science there, pardner. Who appointed you the arbiter
of what's
> normal and natural? I think this is your problem:
>

Nobody. I am not the arbitor of anything, but thanks for asking.

Sexual preference is not a public matter. A community, county, state, ought
to be able to define acceptable behavior, then prosecute if the behavior is
outside the guidelines. Remember, these men were caught in the act of
engaging in "unacceptable behavior" as defined by the State of Texas. Their
position was that it is OK in other places, so it should be OK in Texas.



> August 1996 Press Release
> WASHINGTON -- Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia -- the fear,
anxiety, anger,
> discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for
gay
> individuals -- is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person
is either
> unaware of or denies. A study appearing in the August 1996 issue of the
Journal of
> Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association
(APA), provides
> new empirical evidence that is consistent with that theory.
>
> Researchers at the University of Georgia conducted an experiment involving
35 homophobic
> men and 29 nonhomophobic men as measured by the Index of Homophobia scale.
All the
> participants selected for the study described themselves as exclusively
heterosexual both
> in terms of sexual arousal and experience.
>
> Each participant was exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli
consisting of
> heterosexual, male homosexual and lesbian videotapes (but not necessarily
in that order).
> Their degree of sexual arousal was measured by penile plethysmography,
which precisely
> measures and records male tumescence.
>
> Men in both groups were aroused by about the same degree by the video
depicting
> heterosexual sexual behavior and by the video showing two women engaged in
sexual
> behavior. The only significant difference in degree of arousal between the
two groups
> occurred when they viewed the video depicting male homosexual sex: 'The
homophobic men
> showed a significant increase in penile circumference to the male
homosexual video, but
> the control [nonhomophobic] men did not.'
>
> Broken down further, the measurements showed that while 66% of the
nonhomophobic group
> showed no significant tumescence while watching the male homosexual video,
only 20% of the
> homophobic men showed little or no evidence of arousal. Similarly, while
24% of the
> nonhomophobic men showed definite tumescence while watching the homosexual
video, 54% of
> the homophobic men did.
>
> When asked to give their own subjective assessment of the degree to which
they were
> aroused by watching each of the three videos, men in both groups gave
answers that tracked
> fairly closely with the results of the objective physiological
measurement, with one
> exception: the homophobic men significantly underestimated their degree of
arousal by the
> male homosexual video.
>
> Do these findings mean, then, that homophobia in men is a reaction to
repressed homosexual
> urges, as psychoanalysis theorizes? While their findings are consistent
with that theory,
> the authors note that there is another, competing theoretical explanation:
anxiety.
> According to this theory, viewing the male homosexual videotape may have
caused negative
> emotions (such as anxiety) in the homophobic men, but not in the
nonhomophobic men. As the
> authors note, 'anxiety has been shown to enhance arousal and erection,'
and so it is also
> possible that 'a response to homosexual stimuli [in these men] is a
function of the threat
> condition rather than sexual arousal per se. These competing notions can
and should be
> evaluated by future research.'
>
> Article: 'Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?' by Henry E.
Adams, Ph.D.,
> Lester W. Wright, Jr., Ph.D. and Bethany A. Lohr, University of Georgia,
in Journal of
> Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 105, No. 3, pp 440-445.
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> The American Psychological Association (APA), in Washington,DC, is the
largest scientific
> and professional organization representing psychology in the United States
and is the
> world's largest association of psychologists. APA's membership includes
more than 142,000
> researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its
divisions in 49
> subfields of psychology and affiliations with 58 state and Canadian
provincial
> associations, APA works to advance psychology as a science, as a
profession and as a means
> of promoting human welfare.
>
>

Research causes cancer in labratory rats.

So what if men are arroused by sexual behavior of any type? Sex is sex, and
it arouses even if we think it is wrong. Should we legalize kiddy porn if
there is a study that shows men that profess to deplore child porn are shown
to be aroused by it?

>


 

"Buddy Ebsen" <dead@hillbilly.com> wrote in message
news:vzgPa.1117$Bp2.503@fed1read07...
>
> "David Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@san.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:2tgPa.99607$98.3538314@twister.socal.rr.com...
> >
> > "Barry White" <Singingin@theafterlife.com> wrote in message
> > news:IuZOa.18$OP.7@fed1read04...
> > >
> > > "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:newscache$2q1rhh$npi$1@news.ipinc.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Earle Horton" <enfermero_diabolico@registerednurses.com> wrote in
> > message
> > > > news:bec098$369hn$1@ID-147790.news.dfncis.de...
> > > >
> > > > > No, you cannot argue for laws against incest on the basis of
science
> > and
> > > > > reproductive issues. The only justification for such laws is that
> > most
> > > > > people find incest disgusting.
> > >
> > > If you outlawed incest, what would the Morons (mormons) do???
> > >
> > >
> > Huh? Where did that come from?
> >
> >
>
> It's the sport of choice among latter day loonies out west; marry your 13
year old
> daughter and move to Colorado City.
>
>

I'm LDS and guaruntee you there's no such "sport". Incest is cause for
excommunication (and jail). Where do you get this stuff from?


 

"David Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:s7iPa.99627$98.3551166@twister.socal.rr.com...
>
> "Buddy Ebsen" <dead@hillbilly.com> wrote in message
> news:vzgPa.1117$Bp2.503@fed1read07...
> >
> > "David Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@san.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:2tgPa.99607$98.3538314@twister.socal.rr.com...
> > >
> > > "Barry White" <Singingin@theafterlife.com> wrote in message
> > > news:IuZOa.18$OP.7@fed1read04...
> > > >
> > > > "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:newscache$2q1rhh$npi$1@news.ipinc.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Earle Horton" <enfermero_diabolico@registerednurses.com> wrote in
> > > message
> > > > > news:bec098$369hn$1@ID-147790.news.dfncis.de...
> > > > >
> > > > > > No, you cannot argue for laws against incest on the basis of
> science
> > > and
> > > > > > reproductive issues. The only justification for such laws is that
> > > most
> > > > > > people find incest disgusting.
> > > >
> > > > If you outlawed incest, what would the Morons (mormons) do???
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Huh? Where did that come from?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > It's the sport of choice among latter day loonies out west; marry your 13
> year old
> > daughter and move to Colorado City.
> >
> >
>
> I'm LDS and guaruntee you there's no such "sport". Incest is cause for
> excommunication (and jail). Where do you get this stuff from?
>
>

Well you're welcome to come out and take a look at Colorado City, Arizona. It is a
polygamous mormon community and it has existed for years and the law enforcement officials
have done very little to stop the practice. Girls as young as I posted are forced into
incestuous relationships. An Arizona governor was bounced out of office in the 1950's
because he had the balls to raid the town. The state's mormon population voted him out.
Additionally, there are about 30-40,000 plural marriages right now in Utah. That fact has
been around for years. Everytime Colorado City comes up, I get to hear all of this over
again.


 

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vgra2hcg4hg2df@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
> news:behj36$s9i$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > In article <vgog5jqf07phcd@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> To be perfeclty clear, I don't care that sexual deviates are deviated, I
> just don't want to know that they are. Take your sexual preference off the
> table, it is not a matter for public discussion. I don't want goon squads
> chasing the deviates down, but if the deviates get caught in a compromising
> position, they too bad, they are busted.

It would be nice if the laws regarding sexual conduct were uniformly enforced between what
you call "deviate," (which is a pejorative term) and what I guess you must consider
"non-deviate."


 
Jeff Strickland wrote:
SNIPPY
>
> So what if men are arroused by sexual behavior of any type? Sex is sex, and
> it arouses even if we think it is wrong. Should we legalize kiddy porn if
> there is a study that shows men that profess to deplore child porn are shown
> to be aroused by it?
>
There, that looks much better. (Nothing worse than a long thread with
lots of replies, none of them wrapped properly.) I don't think that
kiddie porn is ever going to be accepted, at least in the United States.
There are too many arguments against it that are stronger than the
privacy argument, such as age of consent. I wonder though, how the
supreme court decision affects incest between consenting adults with no
plans of reproduction. Granted this is disgusting, but if they do it in
private and they are consenting adults the same ruling seems to apply,
even if they live together in public as the two gentlemen (?) in the
Texas case were doing.

In Colorado we allow first cousins to marry. Even if you buy the
increased risk of birth defects argument, the chance of a birth defect
in offspring of a father and a daughter is only twice that of offspring
of first cousins. Certainly, this is no cause for the state to
interfere in citizens' private business...

Earle

 

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vgrbeuigs59094@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Barry White" <Singingin@theafterlife.com> wrote in message
> news:xzZOa.24$OP.2@fed1read04...
> >
> > "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:vgog5jqf07phcd@corp.supernews.com...

>
> Sexual preference is not a public matter. A community, county, state, ought
> to be able to define acceptable behavior, then prosecute if the behavior is
> outside the guidelines. Remember, these men were caught in the act of
> engaging in "unacceptable behavior" as defined by the State of Texas. Their
> position was that it is OK in other places, so it should be OK in Texas.

So then "Cops" should be able to come crashing in to a private residence and arrest
consenting adults because some radical Reich bigots have passed laws that are based on
their own religious morality? If that's the case, then it will be straight sex for
procreation only (something which is definitely NOT needed). Going to be a lot of
miserable people out there or people who are constantly breaking the law.


 

"Earle Horton" <enfermero_diabolico@registerednurses.com> wrote in message
news:bekbpq$6596o$1@ID-147790.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Jeff Strickland wrote:

> There, that looks much better. (Nothing worse than a long thread with
> lots of replies, none of them wrapped properly.) I don't think that
> kiddie porn is ever going to be accepted, at least in the United States.
> There are too many arguments against it that are stronger than the
> privacy argument, such as age of consent. I wonder though, how the
> supreme court decision affects incest between consenting adults with no
> plans of reproduction. Granted this is disgusting, but if they do it in
> private and they are consenting adults the same ruling seems to apply,
> even if they live together in public as the two gentlemen (?) in the
> Texas case were doing.

I hope I misread your post. You think sex without plans of procreation is disgusting? If
so, you need an education.


 
Buddy Ebsen wrote:

> "Earle Horton" <enfermero_diabolico@registerednurses.com> wrote in message
> news:bekbpq$6596o$1@ID-147790.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>>Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
>
>>There, that looks much better. (Nothing worse than a long thread with
>>lots of replies, none of them wrapped properly.) I don't think that
>>kiddie porn is ever going to be accepted, at least in the United States.
>> There are too many arguments against it that are stronger than the
>>privacy argument, such as age of consent. I wonder though, how the
>>supreme court decision affects incest between consenting adults with no
>>plans of reproduction. Granted this is disgusting, but if they do it in
>>private and they are consenting adults the same ruling seems to apply,
>>even if they live together in public as the two gentlemen (?) in the
>>Texas case were doing.
>
>
> I hope I misread your post. You think sex without plans of procreation is disgusting? If
> so, you need an education.
>

Yeah, you misread it. You must be working too hard or too old or
something, or maybe your parents were cousins. ;o) I am talking about
incest, and take out reproduction so people can't use that argument. Of
course, what if a brother and sister want to procreate together to keep
their inheritance in the family? Say they get genetic counselling and
the doc gives them the green light?

Earle

 

"Earle Horton" <enfermero_diabolico@registerednurses.com> wrote in message
news:bekcd9$64oh3$1@ID-147790.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Buddy Ebsen wrote:
>
> > "Earle Horton" <enfermero_diabolico@registerednurses.com> wrote in message
> > news:bekbpq$6596o$1@ID-147790.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> >>Jeff Strickland wrote:
> >
> >
> >>There, that looks much better. (Nothing worse than a long thread with
> >>lots of replies, none of them wrapped properly.) I don't think that
> >>kiddie porn is ever going to be accepted, at least in the United States.
> >> There are too many arguments against it that are stronger than the
> >>privacy argument, such as age of consent. I wonder though, how the
> >>supreme court decision affects incest between consenting adults with no
> >>plans of reproduction. Granted this is disgusting, but if they do it in
> >>private and they are consenting adults the same ruling seems to apply,
> >>even if they live together in public as the two gentlemen (?) in the
> >>Texas case were doing.
> >
> >
> > I hope I misread your post. You think sex without plans of procreation is disgusting?
If
> > so, you need an education.
> >
>
> Yeah, you misread it. You must be working too hard or too old or
> something, or maybe your parents were cousins. ;o) I am talking about
> incest, and take out reproduction so people can't use that argument. Of
> course, what if a brother and sister want to procreate together to keep
> their inheritance in the family? Say they get genetic counselling and
> the doc gives them the green light?


No, my mother is a virgin. I am in politics so work is alien to me. I am nowhere near as
old as Robert Byrd or Strom Thurmond. I thought from your comment that sex was only for
making little "wailers." If so, I was going to feel sorry for you....


 
In article <3F0C8B6E.E69515D7@kinez.net>, Bill Putney <peva@kinez.net> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> I'm repulsed by people talking on cell phones in restaurants. That's
>> despicable behavior. Does that give me the right to discriminate against
>> them? Refuse to rent to them? Refuse to hire them?
>
>As a matter of fact YES. Cell phone users are not a legally protected
>class. I could openly choose not to rent to cell phone users and
>there's not a thing a court could do about it (not that I would do such
>a thing, but you asked the question, and that's the answer).
>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
I meant "moral right" not "legal right."
 
In article <3F0C948C.E8973FB6@kinez.net>, Bill Putney <peva@kinez.net> wrote:
>Barry White wrote:
>>
>> ...homophobia -- the fear, anxiety, anger,
>> discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for
gay
>> individuals -- is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person
is either
>> unaware of or denies. A study appearing in the August 1996 issue of the
Journal of
>> Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association
(APA), provides
>> new empirical evidence that is consistent with that theory...
>
>So there is the big lie. Contradicts the end of the article where it
>says there is a competing theory (having nothing to do with homosexual
>urges) that needs more study to be conclusive.
>
>> ...Do these findings mean, then, that homophobia in men is a reaction to
repressed homosexual
>> urges, as psychoanalysis theorizes? While their findings are consistent
with that theory,
>> the authors note that there is another, competing theoretical explanation:
anxiety.
>> According to this theory, viewing the male homosexual videotape may have
caused negative
>> emotions (such as anxiety) in the homophobic men, but not in the
nonhomophobic men. As the
>> authors note, 'anxiety has been shown to enhance arousal and erection,' and
so it is also
>> possible that 'a response to homosexual stimuli [in these men] is a
function of the threat
>> condition rather than sexual arousal per se...
>
>
>Ah - the truth comes out.
>
>> ...These competing notions can and should be
>> evaluated by future research.'
>
>Oh of course! Imagine that.
>
>Well I learned 3 things from that:
>1) Along with other things, they've re-defined the word "phobia" to fit
>their "new" meanings.

"phobic" has come to meant "hating" as well as "fearing."

>2) (If the study was honestly done and is to be believed) "...[A]nxiety
>has been shown to enhance arousal and erection,' and so it is also
>possible that 'a response to homosexual stimuli [in these men] is a
>function of the threat condition rather than sexual arousal per se..."
>Of course in subsequent posts, this little statement was ignored and the
>erroneous conclusion that you (and the author of the article) wanted
>people to draw has been drawn.

Note the "in homophobic men" -- so it's homophobic men that are aroused.
Whether it's due to anxiety or attraction is kind of like asking whether bin
Laden's 9/11 terrorists were motivated by religion or just pure hatred. Does
it matter?

>3) (Immediately following the quote of item 2)) "...These competing
>notions can and should be evaluated by future research..." Why imagine
>that! They have concluded that they need more government money to study
>this burning issue.
>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
 
In article <vgra2hcg4hg2df@corp.supernews.com>,
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
>news:behj36$s9i$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <vgog5jqf07phcd@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Your meds are wearing off.
>> >
>> >The court decision has to do with men taking it in the ass, and their
>> >constitutional right to behave that way. They ought not have the right to
>> >violate the natural desire of men to be attracted to women. They can
>behave
>> >that way if they want, but the rest of us have the right to be totally
>and
>> >utterly repulsed by that behavior.
>>
>> I'm repulsed by people talking on cell phones in restaurants. That's
>> despicable behavior. Does that give me the right to discriminate against
>> them? Refuse to rent to them? Refuse to hire them?
>>
>People with cell phones are not asking for equal rights solely because they
>have a phone, sexual deviates are asking for these rights solely based on
>their sexual preference.

Huh? Why don't all people have equal rights to start with? The Declaration
of Independence and the US Constitution both start with that presumption.

>
>To be perfeclty clear, I don't care that sexual deviates are deviated, I
>just don't want to know that they are. Take your sexual preference off the
>table, it is not a matter for public discussion. I don't want goon squads
>chasing the deviates down, but if the deviates get caught in a compromising
>position, they too bad, they are busted.
>
>
>
>> >
>> >I do not begin to suggest that we should hunt them down, but I do suggest
>> >that when they are caught then we should be able to punish if we want. If
>> >one state wants to allow that sort of thing, then that stat can have them
>> >all, if another state does not want that sort of thing taking place, they
>> >should be able prosecute.
>> >
>> >This is not a federal government issue, it is a states' rights issue.
>>
>>
>> US constitution trumps states' rights.
>>
>>
>That is my point, shouldn't states be able to have laws of what is
>acceptable behavior within their borders?

So a state could institute slavery as long as it stayed within their own
borders?


>Shouldn't cities and town be able
>to have laws about what is acceptable behavior within thier borders? Nevada
>seems to think that gambling is OK, why don't the other 49 states have to
>accept this as acceptable behavior? We all know that some states do allow
>gaming, notably though they only allow in a handful of cities, not the
>entire state. So, we can legislate morality, but we can not legislate sexual
>behavior, don't you find that odd?
>
>The court said that Texas can not have a different law than everybody else.

No, they said the constitution prohibits criminalizing private sexual
behavior.

>
>
>
>> >If we
>> >have to ensure privacy rights between consenting stool pushers, don't we
>> >need to protect the privacy rights of adults with minors, or johns and
>> >hookers? If there is a "right" to pushing stools, then there is an equal
>> >right to violate children or to entertain hookers.
>>
>> That's idiotic.
>>
>
>I agree that it is idiotic, but it is in our future. We will see some
>liberal lawyer point to this decision to say that consenting adults are
>sheilded from all manner of enforcement efforts.
>
>
>
>
>
 
In article <vgraimsm386i7c@corp.supernews.com>,
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > I do not begin to suggest that we should hunt them down, but I do
>suggest
>> > that when they are caught then we should be able to punish if we want.
>>
>> Same difference. Punish them for *what*, exactly? Why, in your view,
>> should whatever they're caught at be punishable? Because you're repulsed
>> by it? If that's it, then I hope you're paying very close attention to
>> every little piece of your own behavior, because if I catch you doing
>> something I find repulsive, then I might demand the right to punish you if
>> I want. Are you sure that's the kind of society you want?
>>
>States ought to be able to define acceptable behavior within their borders.
>Texas had a more stringent definition that most other states, and this was
>challenged - Texas lost. The decision is that states can not define
>acceptable behavior, or abnormal behavior.
>
>I don't want anybody prosecuted because I alone find the behavior repulsive,
>I want people prosecuted because the community finds the behavior repulsive,
>or the state finds it repulsive.

So if a state finds Jews and their behavior repulsive?


> Texans shouldn't have to accept behavior
>that California accepts, for example. California shouldn't have to accept
>what Texans find acceptable either. If we all have to accept what another
>state will accept, then we may as well start building casinos from coast to
>coast because Nevada has them from border to border.
>
>
>
>> > This is not a federal government issue, it is a states' rights issue.
>>
>> The same argument was used -- unsuccessfully -- on matters such as racial
>> segregation, women's voting rights, interracial marriage and so forth.
>>
>Human rights and sexual preference are hardly the same thing.
>
>
>
>> > If we have to ensure privacy rights between consenting stool pushers,
>>
>> So, which of the following applies to you (pick only one):
>>
>> 1) You never engage in sexual practices that I might find repulsive.
>>
>> 2) You have no sex life.
>>
>
>#1, I don't engage in sex behavior that would lead me to being jailed. That
>was easy.
>
>
>
>
>
>> > don't we need to protect the privacy rights of adults with minors,
>>
>> Of course not. Minors aren't adults.
>>
>> > or johns and hookers?
>>
>> That's a question of state law, because it involves contracted services.
>> Most states say that kind of transaction (money for sex) isn't OK; some
>> states say it's OK.
>>
>Texas sodomy law was/is also a question of state law.
>
>
>
>> > If there is a right to [homosexual sex] then
>> > there is an equal right to violate children or to entertain hookers.
>>
>> How, in your mind, does one follow from the other?
>>
>I do not say that the jump is valid, I only predict that somebody will make
>the jump and they will use this decision as the precedent.
>
>If we have protected rights to sexual misconduct (as is defined by the vast
>majority of the world population) between two men, or two women, then the
>jump will be made to the same protected status for other types of sexual
>misconduct behind closed doors. The closed door becomes the barrier to the
>acceptability, if the door is open then the behavior is not acceptable, but
>if the door is closed then it is OK. Before long, an adult will say that the
>girl came on to him, and the door was closed so it was OK. We might even
>know that the guy had the girl several times over many weeks, or months, and
>she kept coming back - therefore she consented. She might have even
>instigated the relationship and drug the guy into it even when he knew it
>was wrong. But, the door was closed so it should be OK. _He_ didn't do
>anything wrong because she started it, and kept coming back.
>
>
>
>> > This is a bad decision
>>
>> You're welcome to that view, but be advised that you've so far failed to
>> put forth even one cogent argument to support your opinion. Furthermore,
>> you've failed to elucidate how the decision affects you in the slightest
>> (I'm assuming you're a heterosexual).
>>
>> DS
>>
>The court has struck down the right of a state to legislate its own moral
>behavior.
>
>
 
In article <1UhPa.99620$98.3548870@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> "The currently sitting court is very conservative.
>> Every
>> time they are forced by the Constitution to issue a ruling that is the
>least
>> bit
>> liberal, they make sure it can't be used to set precident. Every time
>they
>> are
>> able to issue a ruling that is conservative, they make sure it CAN be used
>> to
>> set future precident.
>>
>> Over time, it is setting up a framework that will make it more and more
>> impossible to get any kind of rulings that are in favor of the least
>little
>> bit
>> of personal freedom. After all that's what all this liberal vs
>conservative
>> bull**** really boils down to, liberals want total personal freedom,
>> conservatives want total control of people's lives by the state. Either
>> extreme is terrible, of course.
>>
>
>I disagree. In theory, the liberal / conservative thing is mostly about the
>role and scope of the federal government. In most of these morality cases
>the issue centers around whether state or local legislatures can pass such
>laws. Liberals tend to look for ways the federal government can expand it's
>jurisdiction on such morality issues. Conservatives tend to view the
>federal government as being constitutionally limited, unable to impose
>itself on local jurisdictions.
>
>>
>> From a historical perspective, the US Supreme Court has hardly ever
>> been at the forefront of expanding personal freedoms. The conservatives
>> like to tell people that they are, just because of Roe vs Wade. But don't
>> ever forget that the US Supreme Court never freed the slaves, the
>> executive branch of the government did that. By contrast, the Court
>> helped to _strengthen_ the legal teeth of slavery. If you view the Roe vs
>> Wade decision in the historical context, you will quickly see that the few
>> liberal years of the court then were an aberration.
>>
>
>What you have to remember is that it's not the job of the Court to "expand
>personal freedoms" (read expand federal jurisdiction over local
>jurisdiction). As repugnant as slavery is, the court found no consitutional
>powers granted to the federal government to prohibit states from allowing
>it. It was left to the legislature and the states to amend the constitution
>giving the courts the ability to rule in slavery cases. Of course, we all
>know it almost tore the union apart. One might argue that it would have
>been better for the courts to "find" a prohibition against slavery in the
>constitution and spare us the result of Dred Scott but, assuming the court
>was technically correct in it's ruling, it set the stage for a constitional
>amendment prohibiting slavery leaving no question as to it's
>constitutionality.
>
>In Roe v. Wade, the courts "found" an implied right that states could not
>violate (right to privacy) and thus expanded it's jurisdiction over states
>without legislation. This leaves one to wonder what other things can be
>"found" in the constitution allowing the federal government to usurp power
>from the local jurisdictions.


Well, there is article IX.


> You might think of Roe v. Wade as "expanding"
>your personal freedom because the ruling went in your direction, but the
>true impact is a Judicial branch that can impose law based on popular /
>political views rather than interpret law based on a technical analysis of
>the law.
>
>
 
In article <vgrbeuigs59094@corp.supernews.com>,
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Barry White" <Singingin@theafterlife.com> wrote in message
>news:xzZOa.24$OP.2@fed1read04...
>>
>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:vgog5jqf07phcd@corp.supernews.com...
>> > Your meds are wearing off.
>> >
>> > The court decision has to do with men taking it in the ass, and their
>> > constitutional right to behave that way. They ought not have the right
>to
>> > violate the natural desire of men to be attracted to women. They can
>behave
>> > that way if they want, but the rest of us have the right to be totally
>and
>> > utterly repulsed by that behavior.
>> >
>> > I do not begin to suggest that we should hunt them down, but I do
>suggest
>> > that when they are caught then we should be able to punish if we want.
>If
>> > one state wants to allow that sort of thing, then that stat can have
>them
>> > all, if another state does not want that sort of thing taking place,
>they
>> > should be able prosecute.
>> >
>> > This is not a federal government issue, it is a states' rights issue. If
>we
>> > have to ensure privacy rights between consenting stool pushers, don't we
>> > need to protect the privacy rights of adults with minors, or johns and
>> > hookers? If there is a "right" to pushing stools, then there is an equal
>> > right to violate children or to entertain hookers.
>> >
>> > This is a bad decision, and has nothing at all to do with your assertion
>> > that we are good at killing and blowing things up. BTW, if you want to
>> > praise killing and blowing things up, then praise the arabs. Asshole.
>> >
>>
>> That's a lot of good science there, pardner. Who appointed you the arbiter
>of what's
>> normal and natural? I think this is your problem:
>>
>
>Nobody. I am not the arbitor of anything, but thanks for asking.
>
>Sexual preference is not a public matter. A community, county, state, ought
>to be able to define acceptable behavior, then prosecute if the behavior is
>outside the guidelines.

Like Jewish behavior?


> Remember, these men were caught in the act of
>engaging in "unacceptable behavior" as defined by the State of Texas.

States once defined integration as unacceptable behavior. Your idea would
allow them to do that again.


>Their
>position was that it is OK in other places, so it should be OK in Texas.
>
>
>
>> August 1996 Press Release
>> WASHINGTON -- Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia -- the fear,
>anxiety, anger,
>> discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for
>gay
>> individuals -- is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person
>is either
>> unaware of or denies. A study appearing in the August 1996 issue of the
>Journal of
>> Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association
>(APA), provides
>> new empirical evidence that is consistent with that theory.
>>
>> Researchers at the University of Georgia conducted an experiment involving
>35 homophobic
>> men and 29 nonhomophobic men as measured by the Index of Homophobia scale.
>All the
>> participants selected for the study described themselves as exclusively
>heterosexual both
>> in terms of sexual arousal and experience.
>>
>> Each participant was exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli
>consisting of
>> heterosexual, male homosexual and lesbian videotapes (but not necessarily
>in that order).
>> Their degree of sexual arousal was measured by penile plethysmography,
>which precisely
>> measures and records male tumescence.
>>
>> Men in both groups were aroused by about the same degree by the video
>depicting
>> heterosexual sexual behavior and by the video showing two women engaged in
>sexual
>> behavior. The only significant difference in degree of arousal between the
>two groups
>> occurred when they viewed the video depicting male homosexual sex: 'The
>homophobic men
>> showed a significant increase in penile circumference to the male
>homosexual video, but
>> the control [nonhomophobic] men did not.'
>>
>> Broken down further, the measurements showed that while 66% of the
>nonhomophobic group
>> showed no significant tumescence while watching the male homosexual video,
>only 20% of the
>> homophobic men showed little or no evidence of arousal. Similarly, while
>24% of the
>> nonhomophobic men showed definite tumescence while watching the homosexual
>video, 54% of
>> the homophobic men did.
>>
>> When asked to give their own subjective assessment of the degree to which
>they were
>> aroused by watching each of the three videos, men in both groups gave
>answers that tracked
>> fairly closely with the results of the objective physiological
>measurement, with one
>> exception: the homophobic men significantly underestimated their degree of
>arousal by the
>> male homosexual video.
>>
>> Do these findings mean, then, that homophobia in men is a reaction to
>repressed homosexual
>> urges, as psychoanalysis theorizes? While their findings are consistent
>with that theory,
>> the authors note that there is another, competing theoretical explanation:
>anxiety.
>> According to this theory, viewing the male homosexual videotape may have
>caused negative
>> emotions (such as anxiety) in the homophobic men, but not in the
>nonhomophobic men. As the
>> authors note, 'anxiety has been shown to enhance arousal and erection,'
>and so it is also
>> possible that 'a response to homosexual stimuli [in these men] is a
>function of the threat
>> condition rather than sexual arousal per se. These competing notions can
>and should be
>> evaluated by future research.'
>>
>> Article: 'Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?' by Henry E.
>Adams, Ph.D.,
>> Lester W. Wright, Jr., Ph.D. and Bethany A. Lohr, University of Georgia,
>in Journal of
>> Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 105, No. 3, pp 440-445.
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------
>> The American Psychological Association (APA), in Washington,DC, is the
>largest scientific
>> and professional organization representing psychology in the United States
>and is the
>> world's largest association of psychologists. APA's membership includes
>more than 142,000
>> researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its
>divisions in 49
>> subfields of psychology and affiliations with 58 state and Canadian
>provincial
>> associations, APA works to advance psychology as a science, as a
>profession and as a means
>> of promoting human welfare.
>>
>>
>
>Research causes cancer in labratory rats.
>
>So what if men are arroused by sexual behavior of any type? Sex is sex, and
>it arouses even if we think it is wrong. Should we legalize kiddy porn if
>there is a study that shows men that profess to deplore child porn are shown
>to be aroused by it?
>
>>
>
>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Discodevon
Jeep Cherokee 2.7 crd 2002
Replies
9
Views
2K
Firebobby1
Firebobby1
Slooby
P38 2.5 DSE Spares or Repairs [SOLD]
Replies
9
Views
932
Slooby
Slooby
Arctic2
Freelander 2 (LR2) Front Springs.
Replies
8
Views
872
Freddie17
Freddie17
R
TD4 2.2 Clutch Pedal Release - Normal Shuddering or Something to Check?
Replies
1
Views
319
Alteredtech
Alteredtech
dev742
Oil consumption + cold weather or leaky injectors? (TD5 Disco II)
Replies
0
Views
289
dev742
dev742