Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!unirot!ooblick
From: ooblick@unirot.UUCP (Mikki Barry)
Newsgroups: net.legal,net.singles,net.social,net.women
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Ruling on Sodomy
Message-ID: <848@unirot.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 10-Jul-86 09:52:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: unirot.848
Posted: Thu Jul 10 09:52:18 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 11-Jul-86 07:38:00 EDT
References: <3098@jhunix.UUCP> <14682@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: ooblick@unirot.UUCP (Mikki Barry)
Distribution: net
Organization: Public Access Un*x, Piscataway NJ (The Soup Kitchen)
Lines: 33
Keywords: something to keep in mind
Xref: watmath net.legal:3836 net.singles:14183 net.social:1183 net.women:11215

In article <318@hp-sdd.UUCP> nick@hp-sdd.UUCP (Nick Flor) writes:
>>>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.

Perhaps you should keep in mind that the original reason this went to the
Supreme Court in the first place was for the illegality of ORAL SEX!  The
two people charged under the Georgia law were males having oral sex.  The
Georgia law that was upheld was not an anal sex law against homosexuals, it
was an oral and/or anal sex law against ANYONE!

This includes two people of the opposite sex that are married.

In this light, does it change your opinion of the ruling?  Do you wish the
government to certify ok and not ok sexual habits?  

p.s.  If you are so concerned about AIDS, and other sexually transmitted
diseases, the Lesbian population seems to have the least amount of risk in
transmitting or contracting any of these things.  However, their activies
are also illegal under these laws.  You'll have to find another
justification for the Supreme Court's decision.  It certainly wasn't health
related.

Mikki Barry