On Sep 11, 12:56 am, good...@
rock.com wrote:
> On Sep 4, 12:11 am, "fakeob...@
gmail.com"
gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sep 4, 12:00 am, good...@
rock.com wrote:
>
>>> Sex is among the oldest acts known to man. Along with eating,
>>> drinking, breathing, and going to the bathroom. It should be legal to
>>> have sex in public. Private property owners have the right to
>>> designate dress codes and codes of conduct and kick out people who
>>> don't obey them, but this does not make such disobedience criminal.
>
>> Do you think taht shitting in public should be legal, too? I think sex
>> and splling DNA on public thoroughfares might be a public safety
>> hazard, especially these days, not to mention pretty repuilsive.
>
> Littering should be illegal. But if you have some inclination to
> carry a porta-potty around with you, I say yes, you should be allowed
> to go for it.
That's be hard to do. If you carted around a huge portapotty, you
couldn't just park it and obstruct the sidewalk with it while you took
a shit. I think most municiplaities require permits for setting up
portable crappers. If you carried one of those paint-bucket crappers
hunters use, you might be able to sit on it and shit in a public place
if you, say, draped yourself with a cloth to cover up indecent
exposure. However, they might be able to get you for loitering while
you're sitting on your ultra-portable shitter.
Same thing with sex. Littering illegal, but I disagree
> that it is much of a health hazard. I think most people can have sex
> pretty cleanly and with little litter left behind! Littering is the
> indirect effect, and not an excuse to outlaw the action. If it were
> dirty heroin needles which could A) stick you, and B) infect you with
> a drug or disease, then you would have a good argument. But mere
> litter by itself is not a health hazard.
Absolutely incorrect. Litter festers, encourages more littering,
attracts & provides food and breeding ground for pests and vermin.
For instance too many
> cigarette buts is not a good enough argument by itself to outlaw
> smoking in public.
Not true again. Smoking can be and is banned soley based on the
problems caused by cigarette butts in some particularly fire-prone
areas of California such as over Mulholland Drive and many canyon
roads in and around L.A. It has also been banned on public beaches
because of the potential for serious burns casued by still-lit butts
that might be stepped on by unwary beach goers, not soley because of
the environmental impact of the butts themselves in both instances.
Likewise, too many popsicle sticks is not a good
> enough argument to outlaw popsicles. You must first demonstrate that
> 1) there is actually litter in the form of used condoms or semen on
> the ground and 2) that these used condoms or semen are a health
> hazard.
Used condoms and semen have long ago been established as a health
hazard. It's common knowledge that semen is a fluid which can transmit
HIV, among other infectious diseases.
In any case, the issue was sex in public and not litter. In
> the case that you successfully demonstrate both the litter and the
> health hazard, you should only make ejaculating in public illegal.
> Otherwise, you could just increase the fine for littering in these
> cases.
>
> So 1) is semen going to be littered.
I doubt the law has to be that specific in order to justify and effect
a ban. I could argue til I'm blue in the face that since I carry a
portable ashtray, extinguish my cigarette in a water bottle bottle
that i carry and bag and take my butts with me, but I still woudl
expect a fine if I smoked on a public beach. Likewise, merely hoping
to not spill, or having a low probabilty of spilling DNA during sex
isn't good enough for me to take the chance of allowing it. The point
is that it does and can spill sometimes and it couldn't be guaranteed
not to be.
2) is semen a health hazard.
Fuck yeah. Any bodily fluid that caries DNA is a health hazard. It
rots, it attracts flies and other vectors, it's a slip hazard and it
can spread infection.
If
> so, it could be illegal to ejaculate in certain places, such as it is
> illegal to spit on the sidewalk.
But in other places, like the ocean
> it may be okay and legal. It's legal to piss in the ocean, and maybe
> even to take a dump in it.
Not around here. In California pissing or shitting in the ocean is
dumping sewage into the ocean which is definitely illegal. Granted,
maybe hard to catch someone doing it, but you will defintely get a
ticket if a lifeguard sees you doing it.
So then the other question, is what about
> on sand, grass, cement, asphalt, where are people likely going to
> ejaculate in public? At a park or beach. Yet ejaculating on those
> places could be an infraction just like spitting in those places is
> also.
Of course. The surface upon which you litter doesn't matter.
You can spit into a napkin, and do the same with your
> ejaculate. If you are caught ejaculating on the cement you could be
> cited for an infraction just like spitting on it. The only possible
> difference - is the semen any greater of a health hazard than spit?
I don't know if the law differentiates the potential degree of
infectiousness, but semen, if nothing else, is more tenacious than
saliva, thus being harder to clean or disinfect a surface contaminated
by it.
> In any case, if you're cut you can bleed all over the place and nobody
> cares, though I guess that's cause it's an accident, and people feel
> sorry for you.
Technically, that's illegal, too, but rarely, if ever enforced for the
reason you cite. I don't know about walkways and other public
thoroughfares, but probably the California vehicle code about
discharging substances is a good starting point. In that, it states
that clear water and chicken feathers are the only things allowed to
be discharged from vehicles on a highway.
>
> Another interesting case is indoor public property such as the Post
> Office. If it is legal to go nude and have sex on public property,
It's not. All of your above reasonings have been superceded.
> then it must be legal to go nude and have sex in the Post Office. I
> am under the impression that it is currently legal to walk into a post
> office wearing nothing but a swimsuit, for it is the People's post
> office, and they have no more right to restrict you from wearing
> nothing than from wearing a Christian cross or a Jewish star (I may be
> wrong about this dress code).
You are. Most municipal codes are pretty defined as to what
constitutes indecent exposure. There's a marginal gray area, such as
if someone walked around a post office wearing pasties and a string
thong, but there'd be no contest if the person wasnh't wearing
anything at all or left their genitalia uncovered.
However another interesting question is
> what if you were a smelly bum. But I think the bum can go to the post
> office or sit in the library as well. Or ride the public
> transportation. Is there a reason why a bum should be kept out? A
> health hazard is a legitimate issue. For instance, people could be
> required to wear something which covered their butt when they sit down
> on public property. However unruly behavior should not be tolerated.
> Holding hands or having sex in the post office should be legal so long
> as it is not unruly. Unruly sex is no more acceptable than throwing a
> football back and forth in the Post Office, as it is disruptive to the
> function of the post office, and it is unlikely to be practiced often
> in any case.
Wrong again. It is unruly by the very natrure of the act. Just as you
can't toss a football in a post office, coupling during an act of
fornication, even if hidden by robes, would cause a nuisance simply
because you're impeding the use of the space by others. If everyone in
town decided to meet at the public post office and have sex, it could
turn into wall-to-wall people fucking and disrupt the public venue for
others trying to use it. That is why there are loitering laws. Aside
form the decency standards of which don't even need to be met to
justify such law, it isn't nor shouldn't be allowed for reasons
stated, anyhow.
>
> Meanwhile on private property you can designate everyone to wear
> tuxedos have good manners, but if open to the public you may not
> discriminate against things a person can not change such as handicap,
> or race, or probably known religious affiliation, or possibly known
> political affiliation.
Of course, but people can choose when and where to fuck and where to
refrain from doing so.
>
> The mere fact that something offends someone is not cause enough to
> make it illegal. If it is, then I have a whole list of things to
> outlaw. But I believe in everyone's unalienable rights.
That's pretty cut-and-dry, too. You do have the unalienable right to
fuck whatever consenting thing you want, just not in public. Please
don't bore me about some archaic blue laws still on the books in some
bible-belt state. I know about them, but they don't apply anymore, or
if they are attempted to be enforced, the Supreme Courts are
guaranteed to strike them down. Fer chrissakes, two fags can become
legal partners, get health insurance and adopt kids, nowadays. It's
become an unalianable right to fuck whatever you canas long as it
consents and not in public
>
> The Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, says:
> Amendment IX (1791)
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
> construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
>
> The United States of America was founded upon a concept of unalienable
> rights inherent in all humans. What might your unalienable rights
> be? To begin with, all living beings have an unalienable right to
> freedom, and from that right, come all other rights.
> Protection of these freedoms and civil liberties is the entire purpose
> of the establishment of the law in the first place.
Argument superceded.
>
> While the Constitution enumerates certain rights, principles upon
> which laws may be overturned, there should likewise be principles upon
> which restrictive laws are based.
>
> These principles must be serious and important, and not based on
> preference or prejudice.
Argument superceded.
>
> Otherwise, the government can outlaw anything it likes, so long as it
> does not violate the few enumerated rights, and that is clearly not
> righteous.
Argument superceded.
>
> In either case laws are passed, at present, laws which violate our
> enumerated rights, or in the future, laws which fail to adhere to a
> designated principle. These laws are overturned after lawsuit or
> appeal.
Argument superceded.
>
> "The citizen just obeys the law, while the good person asks first if
> the law is just."
> - Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC)
