|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,228
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,228 |
Originally posted by sigma:
Actually there are very very few laws regarding public nudity except in cases where it'd done to harm someone such as exposing one's self to children. In areas where there are nude beaches for example there is no exemption from the law for them, they are just places that are 'understood' to be places where those of us who do not want to experience it should not go.
We as a culture have accepted that public nudity is generally not to be practiced, and we often get up in arms when it is, however it is rarely a technically illegal practice unless a prosecutor can prove it was done, or could be construed as being done, with the lewd intent of harming someone.
You are correct, in that there are laws that protect children. For example, this law in IL could be expanded to include acts of public nudity without lewd intent, and hence result in a Class A Misdemeanor (1 step below a felony):
(720 ILCS 5/11ΓΆβ?¬β??21) (from Ch. 38, par. 11ΓΆβ?¬β??21)
Sec. 11ΓΆβ?¬β??21. Harmful material.
(a) Elements of the Offense.
A person who, with knowledge that a person is a child, that is a person under 18 years of age, or who fails to exercise reasonable care in ascertaining the true age of a child, knowingly distributes to or sends or causes to be sent to, or exhibits to, or offers to distribute or exhibit any harmful material to a child, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(b) Definitions.
(1) Material is harmful if, to the average person, applying contemporary standards, its predominant appeal, taken as a whole, is to prurient interest, that is a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion, which goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in description or representation of such matters, and is material the redeeming social importance of which is substantially less than its prurient appeal.
(2) Material, as used in this Section means any writing, picture, record or other representation or embodiment.
(3) Distribute means to transfer possession of, whether with or without consideration.
(4) Knowingly, as used in this section means having knowledge of the contents of the subject matter, or recklessly failing to exercise reasonable inspection which would have disclosed the contents thereof.
It seems we as a society recognize that our values are contrary to public nudity, and with the latest vote, we have seen a similar popular public opinion as to the question of gay marriage.
95 Contour SE ATX V6- SOLD
2001.5 VW Passat GLX V6 Tiptronic
2004 Honda VTX 1800N1
There are no stupid questions.
There are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469 |
More or less..thats about right.
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,228
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,228 |
Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
Originally posted by Sandman333:
Depends on your point of view. The right to marry heterosexually is available to all, gays included.
This is a really good point and for myself one of the most difficult to reconcile with my own beliefs.
The conclusion I hold to so far, is that the qualification dictated by the term "heterosexually" is in itself discriminatory.
In other words, that statement should hold true without qualification whatsoever.
Consider how your statement is different than saying "the right to marry is available to all, gays included." The difference is in the qualifying word which has the effect of exclusion.
For a rule to be truly non-discriminatory, it should be applicable without qualification; ie: you shouldn't have to qualify for a right.
The effect of the qualification is to exclude a minority and is therefore discriminatory, IMO.
I look at the qualification as a statement of social values, rather than discrimination.
95 Contour SE ATX V6- SOLD
2001.5 VW Passat GLX V6 Tiptronic
2004 Honda VTX 1800N1
There are no stupid questions.
There are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,228
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,228 |
Originally posted by sigma:
Quote:
Depends on your point of view. The right to marry heterosexually is available to all, gays included.
Why should you even have to qualify the statement with "heterosexually". Shouldn't the statement be "The right to marry is available to all"?
Marriage shouldn't have any qualifications besides being able to enter into a legally binding contract -- i.e. not a minor.
Adding the qualification "heterosexually" is no different than me saying "The right to marry intra-racially is available to all, so why are you complaining you can't marry that black woman. Just go find you a white girl and stop complaining."
See my above reply. Society by and far does not hold that inter-racial marriage goes against any value or moral. It does hold that gay marriage violates same.
95 Contour SE ATX V6- SOLD
2001.5 VW Passat GLX V6 Tiptronic
2004 Honda VTX 1800N1
There are no stupid questions.
There are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198 |
Originally posted by Sandman333:
It seems we as a society recognize that our values are contrary to public nudity, and with the latest vote, we have seen a similar popular public opinion as to the question of gay marriage.
You are correct so far as you take it; however, the essence that is missing from your statement is the universal application.
Everybody is proscribed from public nudity. Should that change, then it should change for all. Universality would be maintained.
There is nothing discriminatory in a law that applies to everyone. There are thousands on the books, many, if not all, that reflect moral standards.
What you are in essence suggesting is that to allow same sex marriages would the same as invalidating any law that had its basis in commonly held morality.
Again, with respect,that does not follow.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,228
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,228 |
No, not really. Everyone is prohibited from same-sex marriage also. This includes hetero and homosexuals. I can imagine that there are instances where business or other (inheritance) advantages could be gained by heterosexuals who engaged in a same-sex marriage, but that is also prohibited to them.
Again, it depends on your point of view. Homosexuals (moreso today than at any other time) seem to insist that we change our long-held values and definitions by beating us over the head again and again that they are somehow being victimized. I don't buy it.
No one is preventing homosexuals from making a will (living or otherwise), or making a host of other legal documents that would give their partner the same rights and responsibilities as married couples. They would actually pay a penalty come April, as any married couple who files taxes can attest to.
The conclusion, then, is that homosexuals want to change our societal values and norms. They want a legal requirement that we respect them. Sorry, it's not going to happen. The opposite is more likely, that their fight for legal respect will in turn spur social backlash and violence, neither of which I advocate. They are trying to force their beliefs and values on society. Sorry, but they are far, far in the minority, and unless we want to start making ridiculous applications of the law similar to what I hinted to in a previous post, we really don't want to go there.
95 Contour SE ATX V6- SOLD
2001.5 VW Passat GLX V6 Tiptronic
2004 Honda VTX 1800N1
There are no stupid questions.
There are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,621
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,621 |
Originally posted by Sandman333:
Homosexuals (more so today than at any other time) seem to insist that we change our long-held values and definitions by beating us over the head again and again that they are somehow being victimized. I don't buy it.
Dont agree with the post as a whole, but do agree with the victimization point. I don't buy into it either.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220 |
Quote:
See my above reply. Society by and far does not hold that inter-racial marriage goes against any value or moral. It does hold that gay marriage violates same.
Actually, according to Gallup polls, almost the same percentage of people accept homosexual relationships as inter-racial relationships -- approximately 65%.
2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX
Webpage
2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198 |
Originally posted by Sandman333:
No, not really. Everyone is prohibited from same-sex marriage also. This includes hetero and homosexuals.
IMO the introduction of the qualification "same sex," by definition continues to introduce a discriminatory function.
Originally posted by Sandman333:
Again, it depends on your point of view. Homosexuals (moreso today than at any other time) seem to insist that we change our long-held values and definitions by beating us over the head again and again that they are somehow being victimized. I don't buy it.
Are they really? I'm not so sure. And if they are, is it really any different than accepting that there are religions that have over time come to this continent that don't adhere to our long-held [Christian] values and definitions?
Originally posted by Sandman333:
No one is preventing homosexuals from making a will (living or otherwise), or making a host of other legal documents that would give their partner the same rights and responsibilities as married couples. They would actually pay a penalty come April, as any married couple who files taxes can attest to.
With respect I don't believe this is relevant. If it were, then you could equally argue that there is no longer any need for heterosexuals to get married. The tax penalty for married couples should be addressed through tax reform, and does not really, IMO, have any relevance to the issue of gay marriage.
Originally posted by Sandman333:
The conclusion, then, is that homosexuals want to change our societal values and norms. They want a legal requirement that we respect them. Sorry, it's not going to happen. The opposite is more likely, that their fight for legal respect will in turn spur social backlash and violence, neither of which I advocate. They are trying to force their beliefs and values on society.
Again, I really don't see this. I see that they are trying to have discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation banned.
IMO you are not being asked to adopt their lifestyle or any element of it, you are not being asked to respect any one individual or group, and you are not being asked to approve of their values ... just the same as no one can be compelled to adopt or approve of yours.
Originally posted by Sandman333:
Sorry, but they are far, far in the minority, and unless we want to start making ridiculous applications of the law similar to what I hinted to in a previous post, we really don't want to go there.
Universal application of a law threatens no one's rights, universal application of a right, threatens no one's values, IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 772
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 772 |
Originally posted by sigma:
Quote:
See my above reply. Society by and far does not hold that inter-racial marriage goes against any value or moral. It does hold that gay marriage violates same.
Actually, according to Gallup polls, almost the same percentage of people accept homosexual relationships as inter-racial relationships -- approximately 65%.
He said marriage, not relationship. Could you please post a link to the poll that states 65% of America accepts gay MARRIAGE? I have not seen such numbers...
former owner, 95 SE MTX
02 Ford Explorer
|
|
|
|
|
