The "New and revised" USSC has entered the abortion wars

Quote:

it's not the government's job, or place, to legislate sexual morality or other parts of the people's personal life.

Prostitution...should it be legal?
Drugs...should they be legal?
Child porn...should it be legal?
public nudity...should it be legal?

I can go on,but you are smart enough to know that there are times when the govt should legislate your private life.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
it's not the government's job, or place, to legislate sexual morality or other parts of the people's personal life.

Prostitution...should it be legal?
Drugs...should they be legal?
Child porn...should it be legal?
public nudity...should it be legal?

I can go on,but you are smart enough to know that there are times when the govt should legislate your private life.

mystery! i just knew you'd go there. Laughing

okay. let's do your list.

prostitution - legal or not, it's not going away. whadda they call it, "the world's oldest profession" ? so instead of making it a morality judgement, i believe that it's better to see it as a health issue. if it's legalized, as it is in nevada, there's a better opportunity to regulate the health, i.e. stds, part of it. really, nobody deserves death for having sex. also, legalization and regulation would do a lot to relieve the violent crimes that go with street walking and pimps. just like any other business, there should be some kind of zoning regulation. it's a not a good thing to have a cathouse next to the school.

drugs - i think some should be legalized, others i'd rather not see legal. marijuana is not heroin. crack and speed are both horrible for people to get into. but like a lot of things, people are going to do it either way. and with the danger of aids, i really don't want to see needles laying around the streets. so once again, if we view drug use as a medical rather than a morality issue, it gets clearer that legalization isn't always about giving something to a person you disapprove of. sometimes legalization is in the best interest of the welfare of the general public.

child porn - there is no excuse for being into this sh*t. the people that produce it need to die.

public nudity - what kind ? like at the beach ? hell yeah, git nekkid. my euro friends tell me it's pretty common over there.

think about. probably the only good reason to have it illegal is because most people look better with their clothes on. Laughing

so yeah, of course there are some things that are of a personal nature that need minding.

forcing a woman to have an unwanted child and telling adults who they can sleep with and marry aren't on the list, imho.

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
Quote:
it's not the government's job, or place, to legislate sexual morality or other parts of the people's personal life.

Prostitution...should it be legal?
Drugs...should they be legal?
Child porn...should it be legal?
public nudity...should it be legal?

I can go on,but you are smart enough to know that there are times when the govt should legislate your private life.

mystery! i just knew you'd go there.

okay. let's do your list.

prostitution - legal or not, it's not going away. whadda they call it, "the world's oldest profession" ? so instead of making it a morality judgement, i believe that it's better to see it as a health issue. if it's legalized, as it is in nevada, there's a better opportunity to regulate the health, i.e. stds, part of it. really, nobody deserves death for having sex. also, legalization and regulation would do a lot to relieve the violent crimes that go with street walking and pimps. just like any other business, there should be some kind of zoning regulation. it's a not a good thing to have a cathouse next to the school.

drugs - i think some should be legalized, others i'd rather not see legal. marijuana is not heroin. crack and speed are both horrible for people to get into. but like a lot of things, people are going to do it either way. and with the danger of aids, i really don't want to see needles laying around the streets. so once again, if we view drug use as a medical rather than a morality issue, it gets clearer that legalization isn't always about giving something to a person you disapprove of. sometimes legalization is in the best interest of the welfare of the general public.

child porn - there is no excuse for being into this sh*t. the people that produce it need to die.

public nudity - what kind ? like at the beach ? hell yeah, git nekkid. my euro friends tell me it's pretty common over there.

think about. probably the only good reason to have it illegal is because most people look better with their clothes on.

so yeah, of course there are some things that are of a personal nature that need minding.

forcing a woman to have an unwanted child and telling adults who they can sleep with and marry aren't on the list, imho.

I agree with you,I just wanted clarification of what you meant.
Any intelligent person knows that there are some personal and private things in a persons life that the govt MUST regulate.

I was simply asking how far you wanted to take this statement...

Quote:

it's not the government's job, or place, to legislate sexual morality or other parts of the people's personal life.

0 Replies

Of course, Dont Tread on Me is correct. It is not the government's job, or place, to legislate sexual morality or other parts of the people's personal life. That's why I have been campaigning so hard against the idiotic laws on the books about incest, beastiality and pederasty.

First of all, it is natural for a person to have feelings for his sister or his mother. What's wrong with that.

Secondly, anyone who knows of the bond between man and his pets would never deny the full expression of those feelings.

Thirdly, the ridiculous notion about the inability of youngsters to give vent to their sexual natures is made moot when one reviews the ages at which people were married in the Middle Ages.

Let's get real!!!!!

0 Replies

mele42846 wrote:

Of course, Dont Tread on Me is correct. It is not the government's job, or place, to legislate sexual morality or other parts of the people's personal life. That's why I have been campaigning so hard against the idiotic laws on the books about incest, beastiality and pederasty.

First of all, it is natural for a person to have feelings for his sister or his mother. What's wrong with that.

Secondly, anyone who knows of the bond between man and his pets would never deny the full expression of those feelings.

Thirdly, the ridiculous notion about the inability of youngsters to give vent to their sexual natures is made moot when one reviews the ages at which people were married in the Middle Ages.

Let's get real!!!!!

0 Replies

I am so happy you agree, Don't Tread. You see, everyone can gain insight!!

0 Replies

mele42846 wrote:

I am so happy you agree, Don't Tread. You see, everyone can gain insight!!

hah! i'm laughing because i'm from the south. we been telling those jokes since before the dirt went sour. ya need to fire yer writer, son...

0 Replies

You beat me to it, DTOM. Surely mele is "taking the mickey," as the Iriah would say.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
it's not the government's job, or place, to legislate sexual morality or other parts of the people's personal life.

Prostitution...should it be legal?
Drugs...should they be legal?
Child porn...should it be legal?
public nudity...should it be legal?

I can go on,but you are smart enough to know that there are times when the govt should legislate your private life.

Prostitution should be legal, and if it were, it would be far easier to end the crime and abuses associated with it. The same should be true of any drug which does no more harm to the individual than does alcohol, a legal drug which is far more destructive than many another drug which is currently illegal. The ambient air temperature is the only basis upon which someone should be obliged to determine how much clothing, if any, one wears. (It is, though, hilariously revealing that you think there is anything wrong with public nudity.)

Child pornography is not simply a matter of one's private life. To exist, a child, a person not legally old enough to make decisions for themselves, has to have been exploited. The crime in that relates to the treatment of the child.

In none of this am i surprised to see that MM just doesn't get it.

0 Replies

Kara wrote:

You beat me to it, DTOM. Surely mele is "taking the mickey," as the Iriah would say.

aye, tat dey would.

and where in the north of the south might you be kara? anywhere near luavull ? :wink:

0 Replies

Why are you so intolerant. Dont tread?

Certainly you realize there is a movement in this country--strongly suppressed by the Facists in the Bush Administration to normalize relationships between men and boys? I am sure you are aware of NAMBLA. Why are you so intolerant?

You may not be aware of the sexual lliasons between Egyptian royalty and their sisters, Don't tread. I assure you, it went on for centuries.
Why are we unable to accept the fact that there may indeed be sexual attraction between sisters and brothers? After all, if marriage between siblings were legalized, there may well be fewer divorces, they probably lived together in the same home for years and have similar values.

And, finally, I can tell that you do not own a pet, Don't tread. If you did you would realize the strength of the love between a pet owner and his pet. You may not realize it, Don't tread, but the revolution is coming!
A ground breaking play, which I saw and enjoyed immensely, is pointing the way---It is-Who is Sylvia--subtitled The Goat. It is a heart wrenching tale of a man who falls hopelessly in love with a Goat. His wife, of course, a violent anti-animal bigot and jealous to boot, kills the animal and dumps the body in the living room in front of the poor man. His heartfelt cries of bereavement would melt anyone's heart.

You are probably unfamiliar with the fact that there is indeed a revolution going on in this country, Dont Tread.

The fascist Bush Administration is dead set against those who would love.

The Associated Press featured a story from Battle Creek Michigan on Feb.14th which noted that a man was trying to protect his god given rights.

This man, Jeffery S. Haynes, pleaded no contest to a sodomy charge involving a sheep and said he should not have to register as a sex offender. The Judge, A Bush appointee I am sure, said that upon his release from jail( the poor man was given two and a half to twenty) he had to register as a "sex offender".

Now, you may not find anything amiss in these governmental atrocities, Dont tread, but I find that they are four square against the only thing that will save our brutal mililtaristic society----LOVE!!!

0 Replies

mele42846
Your post was written with tongue in cheek. I hope!!

0 Replies

you seem to confuse sardonic with witty, mele.

0 Replies

No, it was written in response to the dialogue between Mystertman and Don't Tread. Mysteryman asked Don't Tread just how far he would go in his admonition to keep the government out of the personal lives of its citizens. Don't Tread gave an argument which,I believe, is contradicted by my most recent post.

THE GOVERNMENT DOES HAVE A RIGHT AND A RESPONSIBILITY TO ACT FOR THE COMMON GOOD.

The dispute is, as far as I am concerned, focused on the definition of exactly what that common good is.

The head of NAMBLA does not agree with the definition of the common good.

But if Dont tread is correct, why should government interfere in NAMBLA'S personal life??

0 Replies

mele42846 wrote:

No, it was written in response to the dialogue between Mystertman and Don't Tread. Mysteryman asked Don't Tread just how far he would go in his admonition to keep the government out of the personal lives of its citizens. Don't Tread gave an argument which,I believe, is contradicted by my most recent post.

THE GOVERNMENT DOES HAVE A RIGHT AND A RESPONSIBILITY TO ACT FOR THE COMMON GOOD.

The dispute is, as far as I am concerned, focused on the definition of exactly what that common good is.

The head of NAMBLA does not agree with the definition of the common good.

But if Dont tread is correct, why should government interfere in NAMBLA'S personal life??

since yer stuck on nambla and goat..uhhh.. goat lovin', why don't you try quoting what i said. which was this;

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

child porn - there is no excuse for being into this sh*t. the people that produce it need to die.

what?!? is that too liberal point of view for ya?

0 Replies

How intolerant? Do you express the same feelings toward those who wish to love their sisters? Are you strongly against those who wish to marry more than one woman-multiple wives concurrently? Do you want to block the love one can have for his pet or an animal he or she is strongly attracted to? You cannot use the "unnatural" gimmick. That has long ago been tossed overboard.

0 Replies

Say, Bubba, did they ban you over at Seattlebuzz again? Is that why you've shown up back here in yet another guise?

0 Replies

mele42846 wrote:

How intolerant? Do you express the same feelings toward those who wish to love their sisters? Are you strongly against those who wish to marry more than one woman-multiple wives concurrently? Do you want to block the love one can have for his pet or an animal he or she is strongly attracted to? You cannot use the "unnatural" gimmick. That has long ago been tossed overboard.

huh... gee. you never really seem to respond with anything but an outpouring of absurdities either.

nice to see ya anyway. thanks for stoppin' by.

0 Replies

Why absurd? Are you telling me that the organization NAMBLA does not exist?

Are you telling me that some people in Utah do not have multiple wives?

Are you telling me that the play

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
Quote:
it's not the government's job, or place, to legislate sexual morality or other parts of the people's personal life.

Prostitution...should it be legal?
Drugs...should they be legal?
Child porn...should it be legal?
public nudity...should it be legal?

I can go on,but you are smart enough to know that there are times when the govt should legislate your private life.

Prostitution should be legal, and if it were, it would be far easier to end the crime and abuses associated with it. The same should be true of any drug which does no more harm to the individual than does alcohol, a legal drug which is far more destructive than many another drug which is currently illegal. The ambient air temperature is the only basis upon which someone should be obliged to determine how much clothing, if any, one wears. (It is, though, hilariously revealing that you think there is anything wrong with public nudity.)

Child pornography is not simply a matter of one's private life. To exist, a child, a person not legally old enough to make decisions for themselves, has to have been exploited. The crime in that relates to the treatment of the child.

In none of this am i surprised to see that MM just doesn't get it.

There you go,making a fool of yourself by assuming to know what I think about the issues I presented.

I did NOT give my opinion about any of those issues,because I wanted your opinion first.

Let me take them in the order I wrote them

Prostitution...If operated the same way it is in Nevada,with the girls having to undergo regular medical exams,and working in legal brothels,I have no problem with it.

Drugs...I dont care what you do in your own home,but you better be straight and sober when you are out in public.

Public Nudity...again,I have no problem with it,but even you have to admit that there are some people that have no business being nude,even in private.

Child Porn...any person engaged in that should be shot,without a trial.
But,do you think this is ok...

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/16/scotus.virtual.child.porn/

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday struck down a 6-year-old law that prohibits the distribution and possession of virtual child pornography that appears to -- but does not -- depict real children."

(snip)

"The ruling came in a case named Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition. U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and President George W. Bush's Justice Department inherited defense of the law from former Attorney General Janet Reno and the President Clinton Justice Department, which had defended the law in the lower courts."

Here is another story about it...

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa041602a.htm

"In a 6-3 majority opinion, the court ruled in the case of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, that the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) violates the First Amendment rights of free-speech."

So,is this ok,and should it be allowed?

0 Replies

The "New and revised" USSC has entered the abortion wars

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know