Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!lll-crg!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!hplabs!tektronix!teklds!dadla!rob
From: rob@dadla.UUCP (Rob Vetter)
Newsgroups: net.legal,net.singles,net.social,net.women
Subject: Re: Re: Supreme Court Ruling on Sodomy
Message-ID: <893@dadla.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 14-Jul-86 12:14:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: dadla.893
Posted: Mon Jul 14 12:14:17 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 16-Jul-86 03:16:26 EDT
References: <3098@jhunix.UUCP> <14682@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: rob@dadla.UUCP (Rob Vetter)
Distribution: net
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR.
Lines: 34
Xref: watmath net.legal:3962 net.singles:14350 net.social:1201 net.women:11322

In article <686@osu-cgrg.UUCP> girard@osu-cgrg.UUCP (michael girard) writes:
>
>  In discussing the recent supreme court ruling regarding sodomy,
>the discussion on the net became an argument about homosexuality:
>
>> I never said it would stop homosexual activity.  But maybe it'll make them
>> think about it a little more.
>> >
>> >Well, syphilis and gonorrhea are spread mainly by heterosexuals. If we
>> >decrease the amount of heterosexual activity.....hmmm!   
>> >
>       Heterosexuals also engage in oral sex (which is legally
>considered to be "sodomy") for obvious reasons. From a logical
>standpoint, the issue should be:
>
>     1. Is sodomy harmful?
>     2. If is is, does the government have the right to legislate against
>        sodomy in order to protect society from its harmful effects?

      3. Should a government have the right to regulate any activity or
	 behaviour that has no affect on someone not participating ?

	I agree with your point of view.  The government should NOT
	have the right to legislate morality.  That's one of the reasons
	for a "separation of church and state".
-- 

Rob Vetter
(503) 629-1044
[ihnp4, ucbvax, decvax, uw-beaver]!tektronix!dadla!rob
	"		"	  !psu-cs!vetterr

"Waste is a terrible thing to mind" - NRC
  (Well, they COULD have said it)