| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
06 Feb 2005 12:48:53 PM |
| Object: |
Old laws hover over Virginians' bedrooms |
Perhaps if some of these laws were enforced, we would see much lower
rates of divorce, abortions, diseases, and pre-mature deaths. The LLL
(Looney Liberal Left) has convinced themselves, and a few naive others,
that the the right to kill oneself, and other innocents who bed these
deviants, is a constitutional and God given right. There is good reason
why these laws have withstood the test of time; They make sense.
http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/dp-51496sy0jan24,0,6560292.story?coll=dp-news-local-final
Old laws hover over Virginians' bedrooms
BY MONIQUE ANGLE
247-4731
Published January 24, 2005
Adultery is punishable in Virginia with a $250 fine. And if you are
caught having oral sex - even in the privacy of your own bedroom - you
could receive a 10-year prison sentence.
Though rarely enforced, state laws involving sex in private remain on
the books more than 300 years after they were created.
.
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Old laws hover over Virginians' bedrooms |
06 Feb 2005 01:07:20 PM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
news:1107715733.298230.16780@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Perhaps if some of these laws were enforced, we would see much lower
rates of divorce, abortions, diseases, and pre-mature deaths. The LLL
(Looney Liberal Left) has convinced themselves, and a few naive
others, that the the right to kill oneself, and other innocents who
bed these deviants, is a constitutional and God given right. There is
good reason why these laws have withstood the test of time; They make
sense.
So consenting oral sex between a husband and wife causes all those
things?
http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/dp-51496sy0jan24,0,6560292.story?c
oll=dp-news-local-final
--
Enkidu AA# 2165
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then where does evil come from?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
Attributed to Epicurus 341-270 B.C.E.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: Old laws hover over Virginians' bedrooms |
09 Feb 2005 02:06:31 PM |
|
|
Enkidu wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
news:1107715733.298230.16780@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Perhaps if some of these laws were enforced, we would see much lower
rates of divorce, abortions, diseases, and pre-mature deaths. The LLL
(Looney Liberal Left) has convinced themselves, and a few naive
others, that the the right to kill oneself, and other innocents who
bed these deviants, is a constitutional and God given right. There is
good reason why these laws have withstood the test of time; They make
sense.
So consenting oral sex between a husband and wife causes all those
things?
Yep! And it makes you a "deviant", too.
http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/dp-51496sy0jan24,0,6560292.story?c
oll=dp-news-local-final
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Old laws hover over Virginians' bedrooms |
06 Feb 2005 01:37:23 PM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1107715733.298230.16780@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Perhaps if some of these laws were enforced, we would see much lower
rates of divorce, abortions, diseases, and pre-mature deaths. The LLL
(Looney Liberal Left) has convinced themselves, and a few naive others,
that the the right to kill oneself, and other innocents who bed these
deviants, is a constitutional and God given right. There is good reason
why these laws have withstood the test of time; They make sense.
http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/dp-51496sy0jan24,0,6560292.story?coll=dp-news-local-final
Old laws hover over Virginians' bedrooms
BY MONIQUE ANGLE
247-4731
Published January 24, 2005
Adultery is punishable in Virginia with a $250 fine. And if you are
caught having oral sex - even in the privacy of your own bedroom - you
could receive a 10-year prison sentence.
Though rarely enforced, state laws involving sex in private remain on
the books more than 300 years after they were created.
Erm
How exactly?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan \in Brussels" |
|
| Title: Re: Old laws hover over Virginians' bedrooms |
06 Feb 2005 01:55:55 PM |
|
|
In the message news:cu5rlj$7bi$1@titan.btinternet.com...
"kathryn" <bob@bobbybobbobthebobster.com> wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1107715733.298230.16780@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Perhaps if some of these laws were enforced, we would see much lower
rates of divorce, abortions, diseases, and pre-mature deaths. The LLL
(Looney Liberal Left) has convinced themselves, and a few naive others,
that the the right to kill oneself, and other innocents who bed these
deviants, is a constitutional and God given right. There is good reason
why these laws have withstood the test of time; They make sense.
http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/dp-51496sy0jan24,0,6560292.story?coll=dp-news-local-final
Old laws hover over Virginians' bedrooms
BY MONIQUE ANGLE
247-4731
Published January 24, 2005
Adultery is punishable in Virginia with a $250 fine. And if you are
caught having oral sex - even in the privacy of your own bedroom - you
could receive a 10-year prison sentence.
Though rarely enforced, state laws involving sex in private remain on
the books more than 300 years after they were created.
Erm
How exactly?
Forget it, the question is moot, as the Virginia Supreme Court has already
ruled that these laws are incompatible with the "due process" provisions of
the Constitution. See:
"Virginia strikes down state fornication law
Ruling may signal end for other states' antiquated laws
By Joanna Grossman FindLaw Columnist
Special to CNN.com
Tuesday, January 25, 2005 Posted: 5:17 PM EST (2217 GMT)
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/25/grossman.oldlaws "
Regards,
- Alan (in Brussels)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Old laws hover over Virginians' bedrooms |
07 Feb 2005 11:30:44 PM |
|
|
In article <1107715733.298230.16780@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
youngopinions@aol.com says...
Old laws hover over Virginians' bedrooms
BY MONIQUE ANGLE
247-4731
Published January 24, 2005
Adultery is punishable in Virginia with a $250 fine. And if you are
caught having oral sex - even in the privacy of your own bedroom - you
could receive a 10-year prison sentence.
Though rarely enforced, state laws involving sex in private remain on
the books more than 300 years after they were created.
What was the law on abortion in the Virginia law books 300 or so years
ago?
What was the law on slavery in Virginia law books 300 or so years ago?
Are both those sets of laws still valid laws (on the State books) today?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Old laws hover over Virginians' bedrooms |
07 Feb 2005 11:18:50 PM |
|
|
In article <1107715733.298230.16780@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
youngopinions@aol.com says...
Perhaps if some of these laws were enforced, we would see much lower
rates of divorce, abortions, diseases, and pre-mature deaths. The LLL
(Looney Liberal Left) has convinced themselves, and a few naive others,
that the the right to kill oneself, and other innocents who bed these
deviants, is a constitutional and God given right. There is good reason
why these laws have withstood the test of time; They make sense.
http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/dp-51496sy0jan24,0,6560292.story?coll=dp-news-local-final
Old laws hover over Virginians' bedrooms
BY MONIQUE ANGLE
247-4731
Published January 24, 2005
Adultery is punishable in Virginia with a $250 fine. And if you are
caught having oral sex - even in the privacy of your own bedroom - you
could receive a 10-year prison sentence.
Precisely how would someone become pregnant from *oral* sex?
How, precisely, does the specific sexiual positions adopted by two
consenting partners when they become intimate make the slightest
difference to the rates of divorce. premature deaths, diseases,
abortions etc?
You're an idiot! ;-))
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Old laws hover over Virginians' bedrooms |
08 Feb 2005 12:47:28 AM |
|
|
Then there was the guy who met a woman who said she loved oral sex.
He was real excited until he found out she just wanted to talk about it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Old laws hover over Virginians' bedrooms |
06 Feb 2005 02:26:25 PM |
|
|
In article <1107715733.298230.16780@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "J
Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Perhaps if some of these laws were enforced, we would see much lower
rates of divorce, abortions, diseases, and pre-mature deaths. The LLL
(Looney Liberal Left) has convinced themselves, and a few naive others,
that the the right to kill oneself, and other innocents who bed these
deviants, is a constitutional and God given right. There is good reason
why these laws have withstood the test of time; They make sense.
Explain why it makes sense to threaten to imprison married people for 10
years for merely having oral sex with each other in their own home? Or
more precisely, why is anyone's ***** business what they're doing in
their bedroom?
I'd really love to hear an "explanation" for that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Stahl" |
|
| Title: Re: Old laws hover over Virginians' bedrooms |
06 Feb 2005 04:10:07 PM |
|
|
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-ACCDDC.15293906022005@news.east.earthlink.net...
In article <1107715733.298230.16780@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "J
Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Perhaps if some of these laws were enforced, we would see much lower
rates of divorce, abortions, diseases, and pre-mature deaths. The LLL
(Looney Liberal Left) has convinced themselves, and a few naive others,
that the the right to kill oneself, and other innocents who bed these
deviants, is a constitutional and God given right. There is good reason
why these laws have withstood the test of time; They make sense.
Explain why it makes sense to threaten to imprison married people for 10
years for merely having oral sex with each other in their own home? Or
more precisely, why is anyone's ***** business what they're doing in
their bedroom?
I'd really love to hear an "explanation" for that.
What difference does it make if they're married?
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Old laws hover over Virginians' bedrooms |
06 Feb 2005 06:37:38 PM |
|
|
In article <drKdnRpMjbngCZvfRVn-oQ@giganews.com>, "Mark Stahl"
<stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-ACCDDC.15293906022005@news.east.earthlink.net...
In article <1107715733.298230.16780@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "J
Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Perhaps if some of these laws were enforced, we would see much lower
rates of divorce, abortions, diseases, and pre-mature deaths. The LLL
(Looney Liberal Left) has convinced themselves, and a few naive others,
that the the right to kill oneself, and other innocents who bed these
deviants, is a constitutional and God given right. There is good reason
why these laws have withstood the test of time; They make sense.
Explain why it makes sense to threaten to imprison married people for 10
years for merely having oral sex with each other in their own home? Or
more precisely, why is anyone's ***** business what they're doing in
their bedroom?
I'd really love to hear an "explanation" for that.
What difference does it make if they're married?
Because that's what the law under discussion addresses, according to the
article.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Stahl" |
|
| Title: Re: Old laws hover over Virginians' bedrooms |
07 Feb 2005 02:49:34 PM |
|
|
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-E10D97.19405206022005@news.east.earthlink.net...
In article <drKdnRpMjbngCZvfRVn-oQ@giganews.com>, "Mark Stahl"
<stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-ACCDDC.15293906022005@news.east.earthlink.net...
In article <1107715733.298230.16780@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "J
Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Perhaps if some of these laws were enforced, we would see much lower
rates of divorce, abortions, diseases, and pre-mature deaths. The LLL
(Looney Liberal Left) has convinced themselves, and a few naive
others,
that the the right to kill oneself, and other innocents who bed these
deviants, is a constitutional and God given right. There is good
reason
why these laws have withstood the test of time; They make sense.
Explain why it makes sense to threaten to imprison married people for
10
years for merely having oral sex with each other in their own home? Or
more precisely, why is anyone's ***** business what they're doing in
their bedroom?
I'd really love to hear an "explanation" for that.
What difference does it make if they're married?
Because that's what the law under discussion addresses, according to the
article.
Right, sorry; what I mean is, why should anyone including the law care about
that? IOW, why shouldn't that law be struck down?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: Old laws hover over Virginians' bedrooms |
07 Feb 2005 03:10:32 PM |
|
|
"Mark Stahl" <stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote in message
news:tvydnTq0b5KDTprfRVn-3w@giganews.com...
" IOW, why shouldn't that law be struck down? "
If the question is in relation to the state government, the answer would be
probably because the people of the state want it that way and until they
decided they no longer want it that way, that way it will remain.
If the question is in relation to the federal government, they simply
justify it under the "regulation of interstate commerce" clause. The federal
government uses that catch all for just about any asinine purpose they feel
the need. If a majority of the private residences in the state in question
are covered by a mortgage with interest deductible from federal taxes or
federally subsidized mortgage insurance, that entails interstate commerce
and bingo, the feds can get away with just about anything they choose to do,
including looking through the keyhole in your bedroom door.
--
I come here not to argue, persuade nor respond
to displays of immaturity, but only to inform from
the annals of history.
Maverick
http://www.independent.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Old laws hover over Virginians' bedrooms |
07 Feb 2005 05:15:28 PM |
|
|
In article <cPQNd.1133126$B07.159967@news.easynews.com>,
"Maverick" <justgopublic@nomail.com> wrote:
"Mark Stahl" <stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote in message
news:tvydnTq0b5KDTprfRVn-3w@giganews.com...
" IOW, why shouldn't that law be struck down? "
If the question is in relation to the state government, the answer would be
probably because the people of the state want it that way and until they
decided they no longer want it that way, that way it will remain.
If the question is in relation to the federal government, they simply
justify it under the "regulation of interstate commerce" clause. The federal
government uses that catch all for just about any asinine purpose they feel
the need. If a majority of the private residences in the state in question
are covered by a mortgage with interest deductible from federal taxes or
federally subsidized mortgage insurance, that entails interstate commerce
and bingo, the feds can get away with just about anything they choose to do,
including looking through the keyhole in your bedroom door.
I seem to recall some sort of SCOTUS ruling that what goes on in the
privacy of one's own home is private.
It may have been in connection with some old Massachusetts blue law
along the same lines as this Virginia law, and I am not eough of a
SCOTUS scholar to trace it down, but if my recollection is correct, such
state laws as the Virginia one may be unconstitional.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: Old laws hover over Virginians' bedrooms |
07 Feb 2005 05:33:18 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-CC6E4C.16152807022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <cPQNd.1133126$B07.159967@news.easynews.com>,
"Maverick" <justgopublic@nomail.com> wrote:
"Mark Stahl" <stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote in message
news:tvydnTq0b5KDTprfRVn-3w@giganews.com...
" IOW, why shouldn't that law be struck down? "
If the question is in relation to the state government, the answer would
be
probably because the people of the state want it that way and until they
decided they no longer want it that way, that way it will remain.
If the question is in relation to the federal government, they simply
justify it under the "regulation of interstate commerce" clause. The
federal
government uses that catch all for just about any asinine purpose they
feel
the need. If a majority of the private residences in the state in
question
are covered by a mortgage with interest deductible from federal taxes or
federally subsidized mortgage insurance, that entails interstate commerce
and bingo, the feds can get away with just about anything they choose to
do,
including looking through the keyhole in your bedroom door.
I seem to recall some sort of SCOTUS ruling that what goes on in the
privacy of one's own home is private.
I seem to recall some sort of SCOTUS ruling that marriage is a relationship
that includes a husband and a wife. SCOTUS decisions are about as worthless
today as is the US Constitution.
--
I come here not to argue, persuade nor respond
to displays of immaturity, but only to inform from
the annals of history.
Maverick
http://www.independent.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Old laws hover over Virginians' bedrooms |
09 Feb 2005 02:41:13 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 23:33:18 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopublic@nomail.com>
wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-CC6E4C.16152807022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <cPQNd.1133126$B07.159967@news.easynews.com>,
"Maverick" <justgopublic@nomail.com> wrote:
"Mark Stahl" <stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote in message
news:tvydnTq0b5KDTprfRVn-3w@giganews.com...
" IOW, why shouldn't that law be struck down? "
If the question is in relation to the state government, the answer would
be
probably because the people of the state want it that way and until they
decided they no longer want it that way, that way it will remain.
If the question is in relation to the federal government, they simply
justify it under the "regulation of interstate commerce" clause. The
federal
government uses that catch all for just about any asinine purpose they
feel
the need. If a majority of the private residences in the state in
question
are covered by a mortgage with interest deductible from federal taxes or
federally subsidized mortgage insurance, that entails interstate commerce
and bingo, the feds can get away with just about anything they choose to
do,
including looking through the keyhole in your bedroom door.
I seem to recall some sort of SCOTUS ruling that what goes on in the
privacy of one's own home is private.
I seem to recall some sort of SCOTUS ruling that marriage is a relationship
that includes a husband and a wife. SCOTUS decisions are about as worthless
today as is the US Constitution.
Scratchy toilet paper?
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Old laws hover over Virginians' bedrooms |
07 Feb 2005 06:08:00 PM |
|
|
In article <tvydnTq0b5KDTprfRVn-3w@giganews.com>, "Mark Stahl"
<stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-E10D97.19405206022005@news.east.earthlink.net...
In article <drKdnRpMjbngCZvfRVn-oQ@giganews.com>, "Mark Stahl"
<stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-ACCDDC.15293906022005@news.east.earthlink.net...
In article <1107715733.298230.16780@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Perhaps if some of these laws were enforced, we would see much
lower rates of divorce, abortions, diseases, and pre-mature deaths. The
LLL (Looney Liberal Left) has convinced themselves, and a few naive
others,
that the the right to kill oneself, and other innocents who bed
these deviants, is a constitutional and God given right. There is good
reason why these laws have withstood the test of time; They make sense.
Explain why it makes sense to threaten to imprison married people
for 10 years for merely having oral sex with each other in their own home?
Or more precisely, why is anyone's ***** business what they're doing
in their bedroom?
I'd really love to hear an "explanation" for that.
What difference does it make if they're married?
Because that's what the law under discussion addresses, according to
the article.
Right, sorry; what I mean is, why should anyone including the law care
about that?
The answer is, of course, they shouldn't.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Old laws hover over Virginians' bedrooms |
09 Feb 2005 02:40:17 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 15:49:34 -0500, "Mark Stahl"
<stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-E10D97.19405206022005@news.east.earthlink.net...
In article <drKdnRpMjbngCZvfRVn-oQ@giganews.com>, "Mark Stahl"
<stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-ACCDDC.15293906022005@news.east.earthlink.net...
In article <1107715733.298230.16780@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "J
Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Perhaps if some of these laws were enforced, we would see much lower
rates of divorce, abortions, diseases, and pre-mature deaths. The LLL
(Looney Liberal Left) has convinced themselves, and a few naive
others,
that the the right to kill oneself, and other innocents who bed these
deviants, is a constitutional and God given right. There is good
reason
why these laws have withstood the test of time; They make sense.
Explain why it makes sense to threaten to imprison married people for
10
years for merely having oral sex with each other in their own home? Or
more precisely, why is anyone's ***** business what they're doing in
their bedroom?
I'd really love to hear an "explanation" for that.
What difference does it make if they're married?
Because that's what the law under discussion addresses, according to the
article.
Right, sorry; what I mean is, why should anyone including the law care about
that? IOW, why shouldn't that law be struck down?
/cue community 'standards' fundamental(ist) idiocy
because the law is 'for the childrun' and protects them and the
community from immorality.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Riain" |
|
| Title: Re: Old laws hover over Virginians' bedrooms |
06 Feb 2005 11:16:51 PM |
|
|
It doesn't except to right-wing Republicans (the majority being =
right-wing Christians), who believe all sex outside of procreation is a =
mortal sin and just plain evil! That means no masturbation, no oral sex, =
no contraception, and they hope not too much fun!
"Mark Stahl" <stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote in message =
news:drKdnRpMjbngCZvfRVn-oQ@giganews.com...
:=20
: "BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message=20
: news:BTR1702-ACCDDC.15293906022005@news.east.earthlink.net...
: > In article <1107715733.298230.16780@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, =
"J
: > Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
: >
: >> Perhaps if some of these laws were enforced, we would see much =
lower
: >> rates of divorce, abortions, diseases, and pre-mature deaths. The =
LLL
: >> (Looney Liberal Left) has convinced themselves, and a few naive =
others,
: >> that the the right to kill oneself, and other innocents who bed =
these
: >> deviants, is a constitutional and God given right. There is good =
reason
: >> why these laws have withstood the test of time; They make sense.
: >
: > Explain why it makes sense to threaten to imprison married people =
for 10
: > years for merely having oral sex with each other in their own home? =
Or
: > more precisely, why is anyone's ***** business what they're doing =
in
: > their bedroom?
: >
: > I'd really love to hear an "explanation" for that.
:=20
: What difference does it make if they're married?=20
:=20
:
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Old laws hover over Virginians' bedrooms |
06 Feb 2005 02:58:41 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 20:26:25 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <1107715733.298230.16780@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "J
Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Perhaps if some of these laws were enforced, we would see much lower
rates of divorce, abortions, diseases, and pre-mature deaths. The LLL
(Looney Liberal Left) has convinced themselves, and a few naive others,
that the the right to kill oneself, and other innocents who bed these
deviants, is a constitutional and God given right. There is good reason
why these laws have withstood the test of time; They make sense.
Explain why it makes sense to threaten to imprison married people for 10
years for merely having oral sex with each other in their own home? Or
more precisely, why is anyone's ***** business what they're doing in
their bedroom?
I'd really love to hear an "explanation" for that.
It should be *very* entertaining. :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Old laws hover over Virginians' bedrooms |
06 Feb 2005 05:32:44 PM |
|
|
On 6 Feb 2005 10:48:53 -0800, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> said
in alt.atheism:
Though rarely enforced, state laws involving sex in private remain on
the books more than 300 years after they were created.
They even "remain on the books" after they're found to be illegal.
Laws aren't removed from the books, they're overturned.
--
"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is
a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the
crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due
to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious
indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility
corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of
nature and of our own being."
- Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949, from article by
Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Old laws hover over Virginians' bedrooms |
06 Feb 2005 06:39:38 PM |
|
|
In article <f7ad019s0ugj9qbp1ko30nlhue96s0569h@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On 6 Feb 2005 10:48:53 -0800, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> said
in alt.atheism:
Though rarely enforced, state laws involving sex in private remain on
the books more than 300 years after they were created.
They even "remain on the books" after they're found to be illegal.
Laws aren't removed from the books, they're overturned.
Not always. After a court overturns a statute, the legislature can, and
often does, pass a new law that specifically repeals the previous
section of the code that the court struck down.
When that happens, the next time the code is published, the repealed
section will no longer exist "on the books".
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Old laws hover over Virginians' bedrooms |
09 Feb 2005 02:44:55 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 00:39:38 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <f7ad019s0ugj9qbp1ko30nlhue96s0569h@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On 6 Feb 2005 10:48:53 -0800, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> said
in alt.atheism:
Though rarely enforced, state laws involving sex in private remain on
the books more than 300 years after they were created.
They even "remain on the books" after they're found to be illegal.
Laws aren't removed from the books, they're overturned.
Not always. After a court overturns a statute, the legislature can, and
often does, pass a new law that specifically repeals the previous
section of the code that the court struck down.
When that happens, the next time the code is published, the repealed
section will no longer exist "on the books".
Which specifically results in?
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Old laws hover over Virginians' bedrooms |
09 Feb 2005 05:48:56 PM |
|
|
In article <oftk01pksl9ofk4hvuuqk7shvhtborahrj@4ax.com>, stoney
<stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 00:39:38 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <f7ad019s0ugj9qbp1ko30nlhue96s0569h@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On 6 Feb 2005 10:48:53 -0800, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> said
in alt.atheism:
Though rarely enforced, state laws involving sex in private remain on
the books more than 300 years after they were created.
They even "remain on the books" after they're found to be illegal.
Laws aren't removed from the books, they're overturned.
Not always. After a court overturns a statute, the legislature can, and
often does, pass a new law that specifically repeals the previous
section of the code that the court struck down.
When that happens, the next time the code is published, the repealed
section will no longer exist "on the books".
Which specifically results in?
It not being on the books.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: Old laws hover over Virginians' bedrooms |
10 Feb 2005 01:07:19 PM |
|
|
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <oftk01pksl9ofk4hvuuqk7shvhtborahrj@4ax.com>, stoney
<stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 00:39:38 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
< snip >
Not always. After a court overturns a statute, the legislature can, and
often does, pass a new law that specifically repeals the previous
section of the code that the court struck down.
When that happens, the next time the code is published, the repealed
section will no longer exist "on the books".
Which specifically results in?
It not being on the books.
Will the new law that repealed the old law still be on the books?
It seems like that would be confusing.
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Old laws hover over Virginians' bedrooms |
10 Feb 2005 06:19:48 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 23:48:56 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <oftk01pksl9ofk4hvuuqk7shvhtborahrj@4ax.com>, stoney
<stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 00:39:38 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <f7ad019s0ugj9qbp1ko30nlhue96s0569h@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On 6 Feb 2005 10:48:53 -0800, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> said
in alt.atheism:
Though rarely enforced, state laws involving sex in private remain on
the books more than 300 years after they were created.
They even "remain on the books" after they're found to be illegal.
Laws aren't removed from the books, they're overturned.
Not always. After a court overturns a statute, the legislature can, and
often does, pass a new law that specifically repeals the previous
section of the code that the court struck down.
When that happens, the next time the code is published, the repealed
section will no longer exist "on the books".
Which specifically results in?
It not being on the books.
The quotes bracketing gave the impression there was something more
which is why I asked. Thank you.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Old laws hover over Virginians' bedrooms |
06 Feb 2005 01:12:52 PM |
|
|
On 6 Feb 2005 10:48:53 -0800, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Perhaps if some of these laws were enforced, we would see much lower
rates of divorce, abortions, diseases, and pre-mature deaths. The LLL
(Looney Liberal Left) has convinced themselves, and a few naive others,
that the the right to kill oneself, and other innocents who bed these
deviants, is a constitutional and God given right. There is good reason
why these laws have withstood the test of time; They make sense.
http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/dp-51496sy0jan24,0,6560292.story?coll=dp-news-local-final
Old laws hover over Virginians' bedrooms
BY MONIQUE ANGLE
247-4731
Published January 24, 2005
Adultery is punishable in Virginia with a $250 fine. And if you are
caught having oral sex - even in the privacy of your own bedroom - you
could receive a 10-year prison sentence.
And oral sex leads to divorce, abortions, etc. how...?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Old laws hover over Virginians' bedrooms |
06 Feb 2005 01:26:24 PM |
|
|
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in
news:rv5d01pkha5co9qg8tc9r3qvt5fmgtpo2a@4ax.com:
On 6 Feb 2005 10:48:53 -0800, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Perhaps if some of these laws were enforced, we would see much lower
rates of divorce, abortions, diseases, and pre-mature deaths. The LLL
(Looney Liberal Left) has convinced themselves, and a few naive
others, that the the right to kill oneself, and other innocents who
bed these deviants, is a constitutional and God given right. There is
good reason why these laws have withstood the test of time; They make
sense.
Adultery is punishable in Virginia with a $250 fine. And if you are
caught having oral sex - even in the privacy of your own bedroom - you
could receive a 10-year prison sentence.
And oral sex leads to divorce, abortions, etc. how...?
Not enough of it? I'm wondering how it causes abortions.
--
Enkidu AA# 2165
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then where does evil come from?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
Attributed to Epicurus 341-270 B.C.E.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Old laws hover over Virginians' bedrooms |
06 Feb 2005 01:30:24 PM |
|
|
raven1 wrote:
On 6 Feb 2005 10:48:53 -0800, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
Perhaps if some of these laws were enforced, we would see much lower
rates of divorce, abortions, diseases, and pre-mature deaths. The
LLL
(Looney Liberal Left) has convinced themselves, and a few naive
others,
that the the right to kill oneself, and other innocents who bed
these
deviants, is a constitutional and God given right. There is good
reason
why these laws have withstood the test of time; They make sense.
http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/dp-51496sy0jan24,0,6560292.story?coll=dp-news-local-final
Old laws hover over Virginians' bedrooms
BY MONIQUE ANGLE
247-4731
Published January 24, 2005
Adultery is punishable in Virginia with a $250 fine. And if you are
caught having oral sex - even in the privacy of your own bedroom -
you
could receive a 10-year prison sentence.
And oral sex leads to divorce, abortions, etc. how...?
You are conveniently omitting the "adultery" part of the article, which
can easily be the driving force behind divorce and abortions. Absence
of oral sex would lessen the risk of disease and pre-mature deaths,
especially amongst gays.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Old laws hover over Virginians' bedrooms |
06 Feb 2005 02:03:57 PM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
news:1107718224.577699.99070@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
raven1 wrote:
On 6 Feb 2005 10:48:53 -0800, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
Perhaps if some of these laws were enforced, we would see much lower
rates of divorce, abortions, diseases, and pre-mature deaths. The
LLL
(Looney Liberal Left) has convinced themselves, and a few naive
others,
that the the right to kill oneself, and other innocents who bed
these
deviants, is a constitutional and God given right. There is good
reason
why these laws have withstood the test of time; They make sense.
http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/dp-51496sy0jan24,0,6560292.story?c
oll=dp-news-local-final
Old laws hover over Virginians' bedrooms
BY MONIQUE ANGLE
247-4731
Published January 24, 2005
Adultery is punishable in Virginia with a $250 fine. And if you are
caught having oral sex - even in the privacy of your own bedroom -
you
could receive a 10-year prison sentence.
And oral sex leads to divorce, abortions, etc. how...?
You are conveniently omitting the "adultery" part of the article,
which can easily be the driving force behind divorce and abortions.
Absence of oral sex would lessen the risk of disease and pre-mature
deaths, especially amongst gays.
Then why is it illegal for married couples as well? Legalizing such
behavior within marriage, then legalizing gay marriage seems like
something you'd support, if limiting the spread of disease, death, and
divorce was important to you. Of course, it isn't, it's just a quasi-
argument within your reach.
--
Enkidu AA# 2165
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then where does evil come from?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
Attributed to Epicurus 341-270 B.C.E.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Loose Cannon" |
|
| Title: Re: Old laws hover over Virginians' bedrooms |
06 Feb 2005 02:59:06 PM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1107718224.577699.99070@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
raven1 wrote:
And oral sex leads to divorce, abortions, etc. how...?
You are conveniently omitting the "adultery" part of the article, which
can easily be the driving force behind divorce and abortions. Absence
of oral sex would lessen the risk of disease and pre-mature deaths,
especially amongst gays.
How about this, "Jon"? Punishable (pun intended)?:
"anal stimulation with a ***** helps enhance the spanking experience."
~Kinky troll "Asswipe/IBenGetiner/Jon Young", begging for his spanking.
From: (Jon Young)
Newsgroups: soc.sexuality.spanking
Subject: best done with help
Date: 5 Oct 2003 18:00:43 -0700
Message-ID: <567f3dc3.0310051700.31b4eb95@posting.google.com>
LC~ Crazy old IBen/Jon is still as looney as ever.
"does it not seem strange that so many so-called christians, jews, and
muslims, seem to spend an inordinate amount of time and energy
thinking about gay people and the things that they do in their
bedrooms? isn't it also strange that the ones most vocal in their
opposition to a gay life-style almost always inevitably turn out to be
closet cases themselves. a true person of God should be spending more
time leading a good, decent life instead of thinking[ or perhaps
fantasizing ] about what two gay men are doing in their bedrooms.
you'll notice they rarely have a problem with lesbians."~"JYoung", in his
one recorded sane post.
From: (Jon Young)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian
Subject: a thought to ponder
Date: 13 Oct 2003 08:12:58 -0700
Message-ID: <567f3dc3.0310130712.bf31ff9@posting.google.com>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
