Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!lll-crg!lll-lcc!pyramid!hplabs!hp-sdd!nick
From: nick@hp-sdd.UUCP (Nick Flor)
Newsgroups: net.legal,net.singles,net.social,net.women
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Ruling on Sodomy
Message-ID: <318@hp-sdd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 9-Jul-86 11:55:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: hp-sdd.318
Posted: Wed Jul  9 11:55:24 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 11-Jul-86 05:32:07 EDT
References: <3098@jhunix.UUCP> <14682@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: nick@hp-sdd.UUCP (Nick Flor)
Distribution: net
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego
Lines: 87
Xref: watmath net.legal:3824 net.singles:14168 net.social:1181 net.women:11209

In article <14777@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jwl@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis) writes:
>
>>
>>  Laws should take into account:
>>A)  What society as a whole desires.
>>B)  What is good for society regardless of A.
>>
>>If A&B are satisfied to some extent, then it is a good law.  
>
>Society as a whole does not have 'desires'.  Individual members of a society
>may have desires, but what do you propose to do when conflicts arise within
>society?
>
So I screwed up in my English.
When conflicts arise, then someone takes action regarding point B.

>What do you mean by 'good for society'?  Whatever makes the majority happy?
>What if something that benefits the majority causes great harm to some
>minority?
>
Come on dammit.  You can't consider A or B separately.  They must be considered
together.  Point B takes care of your questions.  (And like I said, the trick
is -- Who decides B).

>>Does the the Supreme Courts ruling satisfy A?  
>>Does the Supreme Courts ruling satisfy B?
>>(Answer this one for yourselves)
>
>Neither, as far as I can tell.
Yeah, well that's your opinion.

>
>>
>>>The few people who are planning to followup this article with something about
>>>aids needn't bother, because: 1) anti-gay laws antedated aids, and 2) aids
>>>started off as a heterosexual disease; it's not gays giving it to straights.
>>
>>Point 2 is weak.  I seem to remember a report a while back stating that
>>the number of incidences of heterosexual aids is increasing.  
>
>This is not inconsistent with Alan's point.
Quit chopping off the rest of my article.  The next couple of statements said
something to the effect of "It doesn't matter who started it.  The fact of
the matter is -- The homosexuals are spreading it".  Look pal, if you
have to flame, stop playing Mr. Editor.  You chopped off the said portion,
which clearly shows the contrary to Alan's point.
>
>>If this ruling
>>decreases the amount of homosexual activity and as a result the number
>>of AIDS *victims*, well then...
>
>If you believe this ruling is going to have even the slightest effect on the
>amount of homosexual activity in states with anti-sodomy laws, you are
>*incredibly* naive!  It's not easy to legislate someone's libido out of
>existence. (thank God!)
>
I never said it would stop homosexual activity.  But maybe it'll make them
think about it a little more.  Maybe it'll serve as a guideline for those
youngsters in society and make them turn away from homosexual activities.

>
>Well, syphilis and gonorrhea are spread mainly by heterosexuals. If we
>decrease the amount of heterosexual activity.....hmmm!   
>
juxtaposition.
HAH But they are CURABLE diseases.  AIDS is not.  

>>Nick V. Flor 
>>..hplabs!hp-sdd!nick
>>The Comedian
>
There you go again.  Chopping off part of my article and pasting it elsewhere
for your purposes.  If you had bothered to look a little more closely,
you'd see that The Comedian is the person who did the quote.  (Thank you
for chopping off the quote).  I wasn't saying that I was a Comedian.

>-- Jim Lewis
>   U.C. Berkeley
>   "The Serious Guy"
-- 
----------
Nick V. Flor 
..hplabs!hp-sdd!nick

"What's going down in this world, you got no idea.  Believe me."

The Comedian