Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!nike!ll-xn!mit-amt!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!bellcore!whuxcc!lcuxlm!whuxl!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!eme
From: eme@mtgzz.UUCP (e.m.eades)
Newsgroups: net.legal,net.singles,net.social,net.women
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Ruling on Sodomy
Message-ID: <1970@mtgzz.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 23-Jul-86 19:35:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: mtgzz.1970
Posted: Wed Jul 23 19:35:38 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 24-Jul-86 21:13:12 EDT
References: <3098@jhunix.UUCP> <14682@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <2146@hammer.UUCP> <322@hp-sdd.UUCP> <857@unirot.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Middletown NJ
Lines: 56
Keywords: something to keep in mind
Xref: mnetor net.legal:2706 net.singles:8537 net.social:730 net.women:4838


>>In article <318@hp-sdd.UUCP> nick@hp-sdd.UUCP (Nick Flor) writes:
>>>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.
>
>Why should they?  Because *you* don't approve of it?  I think this is an
>important point since you go on to speak about morals...
>
>>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?  [me]
>
    >But to seriously answer your questions:
    >NO and YES. 
>
    >The line has to be drawn somewhere.  Hasn't anyone else noticed the moral
    >decay in this country, or is everyone afraid of getting flamed or called
    >a Bible thumper?  
>
>Whose morals would you like to impose?  Congress'?  Yours?  Why does this
>"line have to be drawn"?  Because *you* don't approve of certain sexual
>practices?  Why can't it just be left at you have your kind of sex and
>I'll have mine?  It certainly can't be for health reasons, because oral
>sex doesn't spread any diseases.
>
>I, for one, resent the government telling me and my husband what we can
>and can't do in bed.  Does anyone else think sexual freedom is an
>unreasonable wish?
>
>Mikki Barry

I'll certainly agree with Mikki that as long as it's private and everyone
concerned is a consenting adult it's no one else's business.  However,
unless things have changed alot since I was in college oral sex can 
spread diseases.  As oral sex became more popular some forms of VD which
use to occur only in the crotch area began appearing around the lips
and inside people's mouths.  I understood that dentists can also get
a form of what use to be VD on there hands from people who have gotten
it in their mouths.  There was a big deal made about this for a short
time and a push by the health dept. and the dental societies to get
dentists to wear gloves and for people to stop seeing dentists who
don't wear gloves.

On a slightly different but similar topic,  what about the laws agains
polygamy?  In what way does polygamy threaten our society that it is 
dangerous enough to be outlawed?

- E. Eades