Canada has WMDs

[Bolty]

Extremes are bad, take extreme jerks for example... hi Pete.

Time to stop, Orpheus. Just a hint. *hands out more rope*

-Bolty

[goldfish]

tarts . . . strip poker . . . "extreme jerks" . . .

sheesh, let's keep things PG-13 around here! :blink:

[Occhidiangela]

It says that the more someone has to be reminded of 'how things are' the less likely he/she is to understand or buy into what is being said.

But maybe that's just my biassed view. :D

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

...the more someone has to be reminded of 'how things are' the less likely he/she is to understand or buy into what is being said.

My own is a bit less poetic:

If you're as dumb as a fence-post, We might as well drive you into the ground now. It'll save time.

You always had the more silvered tongue, Occhi. ;)

[Guest]

Iv got to find out where you guys get your complicated, metaphorical insult books.... theres none in the local library. :blink:

[kandrathe]

Noddy Tooke -- not really. B)

[channel1]

Two things here.

First, the definitions that are listed in dictionaries are changeable. They are modified over time as the editors include newly acceptable definitions for words.

In Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 , Sodomy is defined as "Carnal copulation in a manner against nature; buggery", a pretty wide definition until you hit "buggery". However, Webster's uses a circular definition for "buggery". A pretty useless definition.

In WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University, Sodomy is defined as "anal intercourse committed by a man with a man or woman", which is pretty specific, and a more useful definition.

Second, my real point is that the dictionary definition is irrelevant. If you are going to consider the ramifications of sodomy in a relationship from a legal standpoint, you need to consider the legal definition of the term in the jurisdiction involved.

A quick search of the legal definition of "sodomy" for different jurisdictions returns a wide variety of definitions, up to the extreme where sodomy is considered to be anything which is not purely penis and vagina contact.

What it really means is that some folks will make it mean whatever they want, according to their own moral perspective. Such a ruling seems less like a Law, and more like a Dictate.

As one of the greatest politicians of the last century stated, "The State has no business in the bedrooms of the Nation". They followed through with that principle in Canada in 1969, with the repeal of the sodomy laws.

[Occhidiangela]

For channel1

"The State has no business in the bedrooms of the Nation".

This debate has been going on for my entire lifetime, here in the States, but the practical application has been a use of the statutes for the convenience of The State.

For example, in a State where the actual law on the books is "Missionary Position or nothing," the state chooses to generally ignore whether or not my date and I were avid devotees of the 69 technique, unless they were going after me for something else. It is too cumbersome and costly to run about with State Sponsored peeping Tom's.

The corruption evolves when someone selectively uses such a statute to go after a political enemy, a competing used car lot, etc.

With all of the lawyers in the nation, why the hell have these laws not been taken off the books? Is it because

There is no profit in the cases? Or is it pure gutlessness?

Yes to both.

Oh, and I think that here and there, some states have repealed the blue laws and gone for the principle of "Consenting Adult."

[--Pete]

Hi,

First, the definitions that are listed in dictionaries are changeable. They are modified over time as the editors include newly acceptable definitions for words.

I believe I said, "Remember that dictionary definitions aren't necessarily up to date on usage" which is in agreement with your statement.

Second, my real point is that the dictionary definition is irrelevant. If you are going to consider the ramifications of sodomy in a relationship from a legal standpoint, you need to consider the legal definition of the term in the jurisdiction involved.

Again, quoting from my post, "Remember that dictionary definitions . . . often don't have technical or jargon usage right". Again, no argument.

Thank you for giving examples of both my points, however, that does not change the basic intent of my post, which was to point out that the simple concept of "sodomy" as "anal intercourse" is both limited and ignorant.

And, yes, I agree with your further conclusions as to the ideal role of the government in this case. But you probably knew that, since I've often made my viewpoint on what should be legislated amply clear. :)

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

With all of the lawyers in the nation, why the hell have these laws not been taken off the books?

Because there are so many lawyers in the nation? Especially in the government?

That's like asking a surgeon if an operation is necessary :)

--Pete

[pakman]

It is too cumbersome and costly to run about with State Sponsored peeping Tom's.

Could you imagine the lawsuits? A gov't agent comes around to windows at night making sure that the citizens are in the missionary position. Then a person catches him and sues him for invasion of privacy while there is a counter suit/fine for not being in the missionary position. What a God#*%! stupid law.

[Roland]

This fencepost is thick enough to break a sledgehammer in two. ;)

[goldfish]

Lawyers don't take laws off of books.

Legislators do.

It's generally not a high priority for most legislators.

Laws can also be struck down by courts. To do that, you have to get a court to consider the Constitutionality of the law. This involves bringing a case by someone who was harmed by the law in question. (In Federal court and in most states, courts are not allowed to give "advisory opinions"; there must be an actual case involving the law in question).

Since many out-of-date or even unconstitutional laws are never enforced by prosecutors, they do not result in cases where courts can invalidate the law. And legislators don't generally spend time updating the codes.

Net result: Lots of unenforced, mostly meaningless laws.

Note that even unenforced laws can cause problems. Joseph Landaud just had an article in the New Republic about unintended consequences of anti-gay laws, and Christopher Leslie had a recent law review article on the subject as well.

[TaMeOlta]

It is too cumbersome and costly to run about with State Sponsored peeping Tom's.

Could you imagine the lawsuits?  A gov't agent comes around to windows at night making sure that the citizens are in the missionary position.  Then a person catches him and sues him for invasion of privacy while there is a counter suit/fine for not being in the missionary position.  What a God#*%! stupid law.

Aren't missionaries religuous folk who travel to other countries ? I would never apply for a missionary position ...... ;)

[ShadowHM]

Watching this discussion unfold, I can just picture Pierre E. Trudeau sitting back and grinning. He kick-started the whole thing by getting that Charter of Rights and Freedoms into the Constitution.

And he did love a good argument. :P

[Occhidiangela]

Getting hit on the head?

"That's 'uaagh', not 'ow!'"

And wasn't he once cuckholded by the Rolling Stones lead singer, or was Maggy an item with Mick after the divorce? Or was that whole item thing complete nonsense?

[Guest]

the opinions of a bunch of gamers concerning US laws?

[Bolty]

Iv got to find out where you guys get your complicated, metaphorical insult books.... theres none in the local library.  :blink:

Banned; see ya. Amazingly, us admins are intelligent enough to see that the same IP address you post with was used to create other accounts for spamming. Wow, isn't Mavfin a genius?

Nice meeting you, enjoy your time off.

-Bolty

[channel1]

Occhidiangela:
And wasn't he once cuckholded by the Rolling Stones lead singer, or was Maggy an item with Mick after the divorce? Or was that whole item thing complete nonsense?

I don't recall for sure if anyone ever said for sure what went on when Margaret was hanging with The Stones. I'm not going to go through my books, either, to find out. :) I have all of her books, and you REALLY need to be in a different frame of mind to read them.

When it was announced that they were getting married, John Diefenbaker stated "I may not agree with his politics, but he has damn fine taste in women". But, the combination of being married to PET and being wife of the PM of Canada messed the poor girl up something bad. What she went through seemed very much like what Princess Diana went through years later. They were both too young at the time, and too rebellious, to be locked into a position where a certain public behavior and personal discretion were to be expected.

PET sure did get around, though. Just last week on Conan O'Brien, Kim Cattrall (Sex and the City) mentioned that she had gone out with PET. I wonder how long it will be before these women quit popping up with the Canadian equivalent of the popular plaque in the USofA, "George Washington slept here". :)

-rcv-

[whyBish]

Just to add some visuals to the discussion...

I'm here engrossed in the thread, consuming home-made caramel popcorn.

It's nice to see some good discussions going on (as usual) :)