Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ncrcae.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!decvax!mcnc!ncsu!ncrcae!jdg
From: jdg@ncrcae.UUCP (James Griggers)
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: Where does it stop?
Message-ID: <2023@ncrcae.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Apr-84 21:48:05 EST
Article-I.D.: ncrcae.2023
Posted: Mon Apr 16 21:48:05 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Apr-84 19:00:59 EST
Organization: NCR, Columbia, SC
Lines: 30

Today, 4/16/84,  I heard something on National Public Radio's 'Morning Edition'
that made me want to post to this newsgroup.  The article dealt with the
banning of public sex at San Francisco's bathhouses.  One point that was
brought up was `where does such legislation stop?'.  The measure was
meant to reduce the spread of AIDS by "eliminating???" anonymous sex among
gay males.  There seems to be many people on both sides of this argument,
and I would like to be included in the group against this law.  Agreed, the
spread of AIDS is bad, but the passage of such laws are equally bad for the
gay movement.  I am NOT saying that I am for public sex or agreeing that such
behavior is okay.  Actually, I have no strong feelings for or against it.
What I *AM* wondering about is;  was this law passed in the name of preventing
the spread of disease or simply a way of eliminating a rather icky practice.
Can such laws really reduce the number of anonymous sexual encounters?  It
was always my understanding that many such encounters could at least start in
any public place and then finish in private.  Right?  Gays crusing in bars
are usually looking for 'a good time' and not merely looking to get drunk.
A logical progression would be to close down ALL places where gays could
meet with the hopes of picking someone up for sex.  I don't think this last
statement is too far off the mark, given many of the statements I've seen
by your friend and mine, the Rev. Jerry Falwell.

Anyway, maybe this will stimulate some thought about what could someday
affect YOU.  (and possibly stimulate some more contibutions to net.motss)


Jim Griggers