How liberal is your society?

[alice_underneath]

Gay Marriage Ban Advances in Va.
Amendment Wins Initial House Approval

By Chris L. Jenkins
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 14, 2006

RICHMOND, Jan. 13 -- The House of Delegates gave preliminary approval Friday to legislation that will place a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage before Virginia voters in November.

State law bans same-sex unions, but supporters of the constitutional amendment say it's necessary to clarify that Virginia is not compelled to recognize same-sex marriages or civil arrangements permitted in other states.

"We're advancing this amendment today because we trust the judgment of the people of Virginia and not the courts," said Del. Kathy J. Byron (R-Lynchburg), one of the measure's chief supporters. "Marriage is much more than just two people sharing a committed relationship. By changing the definition of marriage, the family, too, would be redefined, ultimately destroying the traditional family. And if the traditional structure of family no longer matters, what is marriage for?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/13/AR2006011301785.html

 

[alice_underneath]

Graceanne,

I respect your right to exercise the option of keeping your children out of Sex Ed. If you don't want to enroll them in the program, don't sign the permission form. It's as simple as that.

However, I would like to clarify something about the reason why I choose to enroll my children in Sex Ed classes.

If a parent wants there 15 year old to know how to put on a condom, whatever. A lot of 15 year olds are having sex, and if they're having sex they need to know this information. And if the parents are too lazy to do it, that leaves the schools. I want the right to say that I don't want my FIFTEEN YEAR OLD to know that kind of thing! Especially if said 15 year old is a virgin, and has every intention of remaining so.

In Social Studies class, my children learn about the House of Representatives, the Electoral College, etc., because one day they will vote - and they need to know how the system works.

In Sex Ed class, my children learn about pregnancy, birth control, and STDs because one day they will have sex - and they need to know how to protect themselves.

Alice

 

[FurryFury]

I think waiting until the parent knows the kid is having sex to talk about sex and birth control, is not a good idea.

At our privileged school the kids were talking about sex very early by first or second grade. They were also talking about group dates with blow jobs in the back of the theater by fifth grade. I don't know if any of that really happened but it was talked about as if it had by the kids.

We gave our kids sex ed with condom rolling (on a banana) when each were in second grade. The fine line here is to let them know before they start having sex, to debunk what they are being told by friends and to tell them when they can keep their mouths shut about what they know.

I feel we hit it pretty perfectly for our kids. They are happy and knowledgeable though they are not having any sort of sex other than masturbating.

They do know where the condoms are should they need one. That was one of the most important things we taught them about.

I tried to educate my Mom about condoms when she started dating again after my Dad died. She doesn't listen as well as the kids. She scares me.

We talk about sex with them anytime they feel a need to discuss it with us.

Oh, and if I hadn't been fed that, no sex without marriage or at least love thing? I would have had a much better chance of figuring out what I really wanted and needed sexually before I was 44. I really do think that is damaging to many, many girls and boys.

Fury

 

[catalina_francisco]

People want to yell about their rights, but what about MY rights to raise MY children as I see fit? What about my rights to teach my children MY beliefs? I have as much right as the very liberal athiest has.

I actually don't believe it is a parent's right to teach their children to have the same beliefs as they do. With my 2, I was careful from a very early age to tell them about things they wanted or needed to know, environmental, political, sex etc., but try and do it in a way which didn't say 'this is right because I think it is, and the rest are wrong', and pointed out to them they were to make their own choices, even if it conflicted with my own views.

Catalina

 

[alice_underneath]

Gay soldier discharged for being beaten
By David Hoskins

Published Jan 22, 2006

A 19-year-old Army private, Kyle Lawson, was physically assaulted and threatened for being gay at the Fort Huachuca Army Base in Arizona. The Army discharged Lawson after a fellow soldier violently beat him.

Lawson suffered a broken nose in the attack. His attacker—Pvt. Zacharias Pierre—reportedly used an anti-gay epithet during the attack. Lawson was later threatened at knifepoint by another soldier. Lawson’s sexual orientation had been revealed by an acquaintance at an October 2005 battalion party.

Fearful for his life, Pvt. Lawson began to sleep on a cot in his drill sergeant’s office. Local police originally charged Pierre with felony assault. Police reports confirm that the attack on Lawson was unprovoked. Fort Huachuca officials used military regulations to take control of the case away from the Sierra Vista police. The officials promptly dropped the felony assault charges after the case was successfully transferred to military jurisdiction.

Media reports indicate that Pierre has received little more than a slap on the wrist for attacking Lawson. Officials have refused to comment on why the initial charges were dropped or what actions were taken. The army claims that the knife threat is “unsubstantiated” and has refused to further investigate the incident.

Patricia Kutteles, the mother of a soldier killed by other members of the military in 1999 for dating a transsexual woman, has spoken out against the Army’s foot-dragging. She criticized military policy regulating service members’ sexual orientation, saying, “‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ impacts every service member—gay and straight alike—by creating a weapon to end careers and endanger service members through accusations, finger-pointing and rumor.”

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is the 1993 law that prevents lesbian, gay and bisexual GIs from being open about their sexuality. The law punishes those whose sexual orientation is revealed with the threat of discharge. Proponents of the law insist that it also protects service members who are harassed because of their perceived sexual orientation. The events at Fort Huachuca prove that claims of harassment prevention are mere lip-service as violent intimidation is still condoned by military officials and fueled by the Pentagon’s anti-gay policies.

The brutal death of Kutteles’ son, Army Pvt. Barry Winchell, prompted the Pentagon to outline more concrete proposals supposedly aimed at curbing harassment based on sexual orientation. In 2000 the Pentagon released its so-called anti-harassment plan. Almost five years later violent harassment still occurs with impunity.

Openly gay Massachusetts Congress person Barney Frank wrote to Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Shoomaker demanding answers for why Lawson’s attacker has gone unpunished.

Military officials have failed to offer a full account and justification of their actions. Pvt. Lawson’s story indicates that homophobic and anti-trans violence is still condoned and tolerated. The military remains an unsafe environment for lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans GIs who live in constant fear of ridicule, discharge, assault and even murder.

http://www.workers.org/2006/us/gay-soldier-0126/

 

[graceanne]

Graceanne,

I respect your right to exercise the option of keeping your children out of Sex Ed. If you don't want to enroll them in the program, don't sign the permission form. It's as simple as that.

However, I would like to clarify something about the reason why I choose to enroll my children in Sex Ed classes.
In Social Studies class, my children learn about the House of Representatives, the Electoral College, etc., because one day they will vote - and they need to know how the system works.

In Sex Ed class, my children learn about pregnancy, birth control, and STDs because one day they will have sex - and they need to know how to protect themselves.

Alice

And I will talk about these things with them, including that if they remain chaste that their chances of any of these being a problem are a lot less. (I know they could still get an STD, but it's still less likely.) Do I trust a teacher I don't know to mention that? No, I don't. What I do trust a teacher I don't know to do is fill their minds with a bunch of stuff I disagree with - but I won't know what s/he said, so I can tell them my POV. In the end, they're gonna do what they want to do, but I have the right to know teach them my beliefs, and why I believe what I believe. I also have the right to combat anything that the school might want to teach them.

As to signing a form - it's moot point. My daughter goes to a charter school presently, and once she gets too old for that, I'll homeschool her. I'm defending, in this discussion, hte rights of people who believe like I do to protect their children from what they feel is harmful information.

I actually don't believe it is a parent's right to teach their children to have the same beliefs as they do. With my 2, I was careful from a very early age to tell them about things they wanted or needed to know, environmental, political, sex etc., but try and do it in a way which didn't say 'this is right because I think it is, and the rest are wrong', and pointed out to them they were to make their own choices, even if it conflicted with my own views.

And as usual when it comes to this sort of thing, we're going to have to agree to disagree. But I do have a question. Who gets to decide what they 'need to know'? The govt? Our lying, cheating, hypocritcal govt? Or strangers I know nothing about?

When my children ask questions I always answer them, truthfully. But I'm not going to tell them stuff until they ask. And when I do talk to them, I tell them both POV's, then I tell them WHY I feel the way I do. As far as I'm concerned the opposing side of whatever issue it is is going to eventually have their chance to do the same. Eventually they're going to be adults,a nd they'll probably have beliefs and stuff that are contrary to mine. That's fine - as long as they know WHY they believe what they believe, and respect my right to believe what I believe.

 

[BeachGurl2]

I actually don't believe it is a parent's right to teach their children to have the same beliefs as they do. With my 2, I was careful from a very early age to tell them about things they wanted or needed to know, environmental, political, sex etc., but try and do it in a way which didn't say 'this is right because I think it is, and the rest are wrong', and pointed out to them they were to make their own choices, even if it conflicted with my own views.

Catalina

I so agree with this statement and have done the same thing with my girls. This entire discussion has held my interest from the beginning. As a parent and an educator, I believe fully in sex ed. Too many kids aren't getting it at home, or they are getting shoddy information at home because mom and dad aren't very educated or are very biased. I think it's doing kids a disservice to just tell them don't have sex because it's wrong.

Abstinence only programs don't work - the stats are there. Kids are getting STDs in record numbers in our country. Teen pregnancies are up. And it's because our wonderful government, in their worldly, right wing knowledge, won't let us teach anything but abstinence in schools now.

I've talked very openly with my girls about sex from early ages, all age appropriate. We have a very relaxed way of talking about sex in my house. No subject is taboo. I took my now 18yo condom shopping when she was 14. She's even attended a toy party with me. We talk very openly about everything which has given her a pretty healthy view of sex. My 11yo still has that "don't tell me that stuff" attitude, but we talk about it anyway. We've done the condom thing and continue to talk about it regularly. It's not something we just reserve time for and then never talk about again. We talk about it often and regularly.

We also talk about alternative life styles and choices. We have gay and lesbian friends who have always just been part of the group. The girls know who the couples are and exactly what it means. My youngest doesn't know about BDSM yet, too young for that, but my oldest knows quite a bit. No, they don't know everything I'm into but they know it's equally appropriate and acceptable. I teach them acceptance, not tolerance. Accept everyone for who they are, not just tolerate their choices.

I also teach them to be responsible for the choices they make. As I say to my 18yo, I won't be in the back seat of that car with you to make your decision for you. You're the one who has to live with the choices you make. So I make sure they have all the facts, physical and emotional facts about how having sex may affect them. And then I hope that I've done a good job. If my 18yo is any indication, I have.

 

[Andante]

A few years ago, while visiting a friend on Cape Cod, I took my kids to watch a Gay Pride parade in Provincetown.

My daughter said, "Wow! You never see anything like this where we live!"

I said, "I know. That's why we're here."

You deserve a medal, but I can't find one, so here is a

It is about beliefs. I believe that extra marital sex is a sin. (And before a billion people jump on me, so's gossiping and coveting - everyone sins, including me.) I will be very upset if I find out someone's been teaching my children anything differently. On the other hand I also believe in people's right to choose their beliefs. I don't go telling other people's children that their parents are sinning, and all that. I expect the the same consideration from those people. Namely that they don't go telling my children that it isn't a sin.

This seems more and more like a fruitless discussion to me. You are so rapt up in your religion that you can't seem to segregate that from the task of raising children. In my opinion you can believe what ever you want about extra marital sex, as well as other matters, and you can tell your kids about your beliefs. But that still doesn't give you any right to restrict your childrens access to information. You say that you believe in people's right to choose their beliefs, but you also clearly see it as you right to filter the information given to your kids. So what do you actually mean?

People want to yell about their rights, but what about MY rights to raise MY children as I see fit? What about my rights to teach my children MY beliefs? I have as much right as the very liberal athiest has.

I know it is common to use the phrase "my children"; we all do that. But you seem to actually believe that your kids are your property, to treat as you please. They're not! They are individual human beings with every possible right to explore the world, make their own choices and form their own beliefs. The fact that you are so passionate about your hobby (aka religion) that you let some 2000 year old book decide what is right and wrong for you is ok, as long as you don't try to use those beliefs to justify interference with other peoples lifes. And yes; I view your kids as "other people" in this context. You can inform, teach, guide all you want, but holding back information that you deem "wrong", "sinful" or just "unnecessary" is inexcusable, in my opinion.

That said, I agree that most people with my beliefs are out of line. They feel that they should be able to dictate their beliefs on everyone else. If a parent wants there 15 year old to know how to put on a condom, whatever. A lot of 15 year olds are having sex, and if they're having sex they need to know this information. And if the parents are too lazy to do it, that leaves the schools. I want the right to say that I don't want my FIFTEEN YEAR OLD to know that kind of thing! Especially if said 15 year old is a virgin, and has every intention of remaining so. If I'd started to have sex my mother would have got me birth control and taught me about condoms, but I wasn't having sex! I have only ever slept with my husband and if I have anythig to say about it, that's how it'll stay. I want that for my children.

The question is: What do your children want? It's their life and their choice, not yours!

Plus, giving teenagers birthcontrol doesn't mean that they'll use it. Most won't. They are 'invincible' and that kinda thing 'will never happen to them'. My sister is a prime example of this. My father raised her from 15 on, and he's pretty liberal. She started having sex with her boyfriend, but they didn't like condoms (wasn't as fun), and she was to spacy to remember her pills. Her son was born 6 months after she graduated from highschool.

Just as telling teenagers to stay chaste doesn't mean they'll do it. Most won't! The fact that your sister acted stupidly despite having access to proper information can hardly be seen as proof that lack of proper information will prevent other kids from acting stupid!

My daughter goes to a charter school presently, and once she gets too old for that, I'll homeschool her. I'm defending, in this discussion, hte rights of people who believe like I do to protect their children from what they feel is harmful information.

Frankly, the thought of you homeschooling your daughter because you feel it's your right to "protect" her from what you feel is harmful information, that scares me! In my opinion you are guilty of censoring and probably misinforming your child to a degree that any civilised and truly democratic society should be capable of preventing.

And as usual when it comes to this sort of thing, we're going to have to agree to disagree. But I do have a question. Who gets to decide what they 'need to know'? The govt? Our lying, cheating, hypocritcal govt? Or strangers I know nothing about?

I can see your opinion about your present government isn't far from mine, so at least we agree at some point! As for the "strangers you know nothing about", I guess you mean your school teachers. All I can say is that if that's the way you view them, you have seriously failed, both as a parent and as a member of a democratic community. I have to say though, that this last comment is based on the way the Danish school system works, as I don't know the details about yours.

Roses to catalina , FurryFury , alice_underneath and BeachGurl2 for your, IMHO, wise and sensible contributions to this discussion.

Roses to graceanne for giving you a hard time. I know I have. But however much I disagree with you I still respect you as a person.

 

[Andante]

And these are for shy, for being such a good little girl:

 

[shy slave]

Legally the UK is not particularly liberal when it comes to sexual issues.

Nor is it easy to comprehend what is actaull illegal and what could become a test case between current archaic law and the Human Rights Act.

The most famous case that continues to be debated and may eventually change our laws is the spanner case.

In December 1990 in the UK, 16 gay men were given prison sentences of up to four and a half years or fined for engaging in consensual SM activity. This followed a police investigation called Operation Spanner prompted by the chance finding of a videotape of SM activities.

A number of the defendants appealed against their convictions and sentences. Their convictions were upheld though the sentences were reduced as it was felt they might well have been unaware that their activities were illegal. However the Appeal Court noted that this would not apply to similar cases in the future. The case then went to the House of 'Lords. The Law Lords heard the case in 1992 and delivered their judgement in January 1993. They upheld the convictions by a majority of three to two.
When they were questioned by the police, the men were so confident that their activities were lawful (because they had consented to them) that they freely admitted to taking part in the activities on the video. Without these statements and the videotape, the police would have had no evidence to present against the men and would have found it impossible to bring any prosecutions
In (UK) law, you cannot, as a rule, consent to an assault. There are exceptions. For example, you can consent to a medical practitioner touching and possibly injuring your body; you can consent to an opponent hitting or injuring you in sports such as rugby or boxing; you can consent to tattoos or piercings if they are for ornamental purposes. You can also use consent as a defence against a charge of what is called Common Assault. This is an assault which causes no significant injury.
(As a result of this case)Judge Rant introduced some new terms to define what he considered to be lawful and unlawful bodily harm. Judge Rant decreed that bodily harm applied or received during sexual activities was lawful if the pain it caused was "just momentary" and "so slight that it can be discounted". His judgement applies also to bodily marks such as those produced by beatings or bondage. These too, according to him, must not be of a lasting nature. Whole case can be read on www.spannertrust.org

The law used in the Spanner case was the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.Some of UK law is so archaic, using law that was deemed suitable over 100 years ago without examining whether that law remains appropriate seems to show that in some instances the UK do not look at the changes that have occured in society as a whole in past century (or two).


To give an overview of where the UK currently stand on sex issues:
Sex is legal for 16 year olds and over, that includes gay sex. Lesbian sex is not recognised by the Judicial system as an act intself, it can come under criminal acts if there has been an element of coercion.
Prostitution is legal BUT advertising for customers in any form is a criminal offence, this includes standing on a street corner and asking a stranger if they want sex. Some prostitution laws go back to 1751!
Sex in public is legal BUT not between gay men and not if would cause alarm or distress, therefore in public places its illegal. There was a case some years ago of a couple having sex in their own back garden who were prosecuted because the neighbour could see them.
Sex in nightclubs under licence is legal due to a case in 1996
BDSM is legal providing that is consensual, marks or wounds last no longer than 10 minutes, and there is no piercing for pleasure.

Porn and accessing porn is a very confusing about what is and is not legal. There is curently a consultation paper on accessing pornagraphic material which is being widely debated as it would appear to contravene the Human Rights Act & Arcticles

A web site dealing with UK sex laws and what is considered legal actaully states "Unfortunately the best advice is probably still - just don't get caught."

www.unfettered.co.uk

Bottom line is that you cannot consent to assault so any contracts or agreements will not be taken into consideration if marks are considered long lasting.

I have mixed views on this. I agree that there are times when we need protecting from ourselves but at other times we should be able to make decisions about our own lives. The difficulty comes when those decisions adversly affect other people.


If Andante hurts me and I need medical assitance the hospital is duty bound to inform the police. I am not obliged to press charges but he would still be questioned, with the rights the media have it could become public knowledge that he marked me through BDSM play.

What a country !!!

 

[shy slave]

Personally I think that information about what is or is not something that can lead to prosecution in the UK is so confusing and muddled, that inself is appalling.

How can people make informed choices when they don't have access to all the information and variables that could affect their decision?

Much is written about slave contracts and agreements, but it leaves any PYL in a very unsafe situation if one mark lasts longer than 10 minutes and the pyl decides to take it further.

Imagine the relationship breaking up and then the pyl decides to take those pics taken of the wonderful marks (that were so exciting to do and they were pleased with at the time) to the police.
It would leave the PYL at risk of police action, loss of job, media attention all of which would adversely affect their family, friends. What a hell to be in.

The UK need to be much more open and honest about what people consent to behind closed doors, as part of the EU they should look to bring themselves at least in line with other EU countries.

 

[shy slave]

How to Lose Your Job

Probation officer alleges unfair dismissal after anonymous tip-off costs him his job

Jamie Doward and Conal Walsh
Sunday April 11, 2004
The Observer


Laurence Pays' hobby has earned him a loyal following on Britain's burgeoning bondage scene, with his lovingly crafted restraining devices in great demand among fetishists, who appreciate the sturdy workmanship of their construction.
However, when the Lancashire Probation Service, Pays' employer, was tipped off about his exotic sideline in an anonymous fax, it sacked him, saying that his activities threatened to bring its work into disrepute.

Lawyers reacted with alarm, saying that the dismissal raises serious questions about the extent to which a company can pry into the activities of its staff.

Employment experts believe that Pays' case - heard before an employment tribunal and now the subject of a groundbreaking appeal - will have wide-reaching ramifications if it gives companies the green light to make moral judgments on staff.

They say firms will now feel they can sack employees for any activity deemed to upset the moral majority and warn that it creates confusion over the distinction between private and public lives.

Pays' barrister, Alan Masters, working on behalf of the Free Representation Unit at Gray's Inn, said the case showed that, although society had become far more tolerant of people's sexuality, some employers were still living in the past.

'A couple of decades ago people lived in fear of being sacked for their sexuality,' he said. 'This case shows that we haven't come an awful long way since then.'

Employment experts expressed concerns that Pays' dismissal could open the floodgates to a rash of copycat sackings. Ray Silverstein, of legal firm Brown Jacobson, said: 'It will give employers encouragement to monitor their employees' activities outside working hours, particularly in the public sector.

'If employers start picking around, then all sorts of people who do very good jobs but have unusual extracurricular activities will find themselves exposed.'

At the tribunal the probation service said it was particularly concerned that Pays' activities undermined his work with sex offenders - despite the fact that numerous witnesses testified to his expertise and professional ism. A female colleague of Pays also took exception to a photograph on a bondage website showing him performing a fire-eating act in front of several semi-naked women. The tribunal found that such activities raised the 'possibility of damaging the probation service and its reputation' - even though there was no suggestion he had brought the service into disrepute.

At the heart of the case is a debate over whether Pays' employer acted 'reasonably' or restricted his right to 'freedom of expression' under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Silverstein said that such issues were far from black and white. 'It's a subjective call.When it comes to deciding what's obscene and what isn't, there aren't many widely-agreed dividing lines. It's very arbitrary and some groups are being protected, while others are not.'

The prospect of finding Pays alternative employment away from sex offenders had been explored by the probation service, but he was sacked when he refused to sever his links with the bondage scene

Pays' reluctance to give up his hobby is understandable as it appears to have become an increasingly lucrative sideline. Particularly popular with punters are the Victorian Flogging Ladder, the Whipping Bench and the Japanese Stocks with integral confinement cell.

The equipment is of such quality that production companies have hired it as props in TV dramas and Pays and fellow enthusiasts give demonstrations on sadomasochism techniques, involving everything from 'electrostimulation' to 'waxing'.

'During an event we will also provide instruction in the use of equipment should it be required. It has become a standing joke within the team that our role falls somewhere within a triangle at the points of which stand Isambard Kingdom Brunel, the Marquis de Sade and Hi De Hi!,' Pays' company, Roissy Workshops, boasts on its website.

 

[BeachGurl2]

Personally I think that information about what is or is not something that can lead to prosecution in the UK is so confusing and muddled, that inself is appalling.

How can people make informed choices when they don't have access to all the information and variables that could affect their decision?

Much is written about slave contracts and agreements, but it leaves any PYL in a very unsafe situation if one mark lasts longer than 10 minutes and the pyl decides to take it further.

Imagine the relationship breaking up and then the pyl decides to take those pics taken of the wonderful marks (that were so exciting to do and they were pleased with at the time) to the police.
It would leave the PYL at risk of police action, loss of job, media attention all of which would adversely affect their family, friends. What a hell to be in.

The UK need to be much more open and honest about what people consent to behind closed doors, as part of the EU they should look to bring themselves at least in line with other EU countries.

That's part of the problem in the US as well, Shy. Some of the laws are so archaic. And then you have state, county and local laws that just add to the mix. This article describes some of the more arachaic laws on US books. It's written tongue in cheek but is scary that in some areas they actually prosecute. I once found an article that talked about a law that said the only legal sex was married, in bed, missionary position. Can't find it now, but it was laughable. The not-so-funny thing is that once someone tries to appeal one of these laws, the religious right comes out enmass to fight it, and they are often successful in stopping the changes. Prostitution is only legal in Nevada and is highly regulated by the government. Funny, but Nevada has the lowest rates of STDs and sexual crimes out of all the states. Hmmmm. wonder when they'll actually get it?

 

[alice_underneath]

I once found an article that talked about a law that said the only legal sex was married, in bed, missionary position. Can't find it now, but it was laughable. The not-so-funny thing is that once someone tries to appeal one of these laws, the religious right comes out enmass to fight it, and they are often successful in stopping the changes.

Hi, BeachGurl.

The situation in the US is very bad, but it's not quite that bad.



Supreme Court strikes down Texas sodomy law
Tuesday, November 18, 2003

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court Thursday struck down a Texas state law banning private consensual sex between adults of the same sex in a decision gay rights groups hailed as historic.

The 6-3 decision by the court reverses course from a ruling 17 years ago that states could punish homosexuals for what such laws historically called deviant sex.

Legal analysts said the ruling enshrines for the first time a broad constitutional right to sexual privacy, and its impact would reach beyond Texas and 12 other states with similar sodomy laws applied against the gay and lesbian community, and into mainstream America.

"The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court's majority. "The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."

As recently as 1960, every state had an anti-sodomy law, according to The Associated Press. In 37 states, the statutes have been repealed by lawmakers or blocked by state courts, the AP reported.

Of the 13 states with sodomy laws, four -- Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri -- prohibit oral and anal sex between same-sex couples. The other nine ban consensual sodomy for everyone: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia.

Thursday's ruling apparently invalidates those laws, as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/

 

[BeachGurl2]

Hi, BeachGurl.

The situation in the US is very bad, but it's not quite that bad.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/

You're right, Alice. The laws are changing slowly. We had a similar law appealed in Arizona a few years ago.

Arizona Repeals Sodomy Laws
Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / 05:51 PM

SUMMARY: Calling the statutes "unenforced and unenforceable," Arizona's governor signed into law a bill repealing the state's ban on cohabitation, oral
sex and sodomy.

Arizona Gov. Jane Hull surprised many of her constituents this week by signing into law a bill that repeals the state's ban on cohabitation, oral sex and sodomy.

In spite of heavy lobbying by conservative groups asking her to veto the measure approved by the state's legislature last week, Hull, a Republican, said, "At the end
of the day, I returned to one of my most basic beliefs about government: It does not belong in our private lives." Her comments came in a letter explaining her
decision to the Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives.

The law being repealed set out a maximum of 30 days in jail and a $500 fine for the misdemeanor crimes of unmarried men and women living together; sodomy --
including oral sex; and any sex act not intended for procreation.

"The laws that are repealed by HB 2016 are unenforced and unenforceable," Hull wrote. "Keeping archaic laws on the books does not promote high moral
standards; instead, it teaches the lesson that laws are made to be broken."

Conservatives are considering a move to take the issue to the polls in a referendum, but doing so would require gathering 80,000 signatures in 90 days at an
estimated cost of $150,000, Republican Sen. David Peterson told the Arizona Republic. "The question is if there is enough fire in the belly," he said.

Any legislator moving to reinstate the law would be "laughed out of office," said Rep. Steve May, the repeal bill's sponsor and a gay Republican. "Let them go to the
ballot, and we'll watch them waste all their money," May told the Republic.

According to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 17 states still have sodomy laws on the books.

 

[alice_underneath]

Legally the UK is not particularly liberal when it comes to sexual issues. <snip>

Hi, Shy.

Thanks for posting the information about the UK, which I read with great interest. It doesn't sound much different from what's going on in the US right now.

For BDSM practitioners, the environment in both countries is pretty scary!

 

[catalina_francisco]

And as usual when it comes to this sort of thing, we're going to have to agree to disagree. But I do have a question. Who gets to decide what they 'need to know'? The govt? Our lying, cheating, hypocritcal govt? Or strangers I know nothing about?

When my children ask questions I always answer them, truthfully. But I'm not going to tell them stuff until they ask. And when I do talk to them, I tell them both POV's, then I tell them WHY I feel the way I do. As far as I'm concerned the opposing side of whatever issue it is is going to eventually have their chance to do the same. Eventually they're going to be adults,a nd they'll probably have beliefs and stuff that are contrary to mine. That's fine - as long as they know WHY they believe what they believe, and respect my right to believe what I believe.

That's OK, and I didn't actually feel they would get a rounded form of education through school sex ed, especially as I knew many of the teachers themselves had major hangups and very individual views they never felt shy in passing on...that was part of why I raised them with knowledge long before it was fed to them through others. In all the areas we covered, not just sexuality, I tried to present them a variety of views and beliefs. My daughter tells me she credits the way I gave them information openly and honestly with why she is still alive and not a statistic.

Catalina

 

[FurryFury]

You deserve a medal, but I can't find one, so here is a

1.) This seems more and more like a fruitless discussion to me. You are so rapt up in your religion that you can't seem to segregate that from the task of raising children. In my opinion you can believe what ever you want about extra marital sex, as well as other matters, and you can tell your kids about your beliefs. But that still doesn't give you any right to restrict your childrens access to information. You say that you believe in people's right to choose their beliefs, but you also clearly see it as you right to filter the information given to your kids. So what do you actually mean?


2.) I know it is common to use the phrase "my children"; we all do that. But you seem to actually believe that your kids are your property, to treat as you please. They're not! They are individual human beings with every possible right to explore the world, make their own choices and form their own beliefs. The fact that you are so passionate about your hobby (aka religion) that you let some 2000 year old book decide what is right and wrong for you is ok, as long as you don't try to use those beliefs to justify interference with other peoples lifes. And yes; I view your kids as "other people" in this context. You can inform, teach, guide all you want, but holding back information that you deem "wrong", "sinful" or just "unnecessary" is inexcusable, in my opinion.

3.) The question is: What do your children want? It's their life and their choice, not yours!

4.) Just as telling teenagers to stay chaste doesn't mean they'll do it. Most won't! The fact that your sister acted stupidly despite having access to proper information can hardly be seen as proof that lack of proper information will prevent other kids from acting stupid!

5.) Frankly, the thought of you homeschooling your daughter because you feel it's your right to "protect" her from what you feel is harmful information, that scares me! In my opinion you are guilty of censoring and probably misinforming your child to a degree that any civilised and truly democratic society should be capable of preventing.

6.) I can see your opinion about your present government isn't far from mine, so at least we agree at some point! As for the "strangers you know nothing about", I guess you mean your school teachers. All I can say is that if that's the way you view them, you have seriously failed, both as a parent and as a member of a democratic community. I have to say though, that this last comment is based on the way the Danish school system works, as I don't know the details about yours.

Roses to catalina , FurryFury , alice_underneath and BeachGurl2 for your, IMHO, wise and sensible contributions to this discussion.

Roses to graceanne for giving you a hard time. I know I have. But however much I disagree with you I still respect you as a person.

Thanks for the rose Andante!

I just have a few comments about your post. This is all very important to me for a lot of reasons so I hope you don't mind if I expound a bit.

1.) I was raised in a very restrictive household and religion that did shelter and limit what I could see, learn and know until about fifth grade. During fifth grade the entire thing fell apart due to my parent's problems with each other which included drugs, affairs, mental illness and other lovely issues.

I am so glad that at some point I was able to truly take in ALL information that I could find, something I still do today whenever I research things I'm interested in, and make my own decisions about what I believe.

There are many popular culture gaps in my back ground but as strange as those are they don't really matter. What does matter to me now it that I am not some follower doing only what I was told any longer. I am much more comfortable being an active partner in what I believe and particularly knowing why I believe the things I do. Where I live I see far too many who simply follow what they were raised to believe, never questioning. That's not healthy in my opinion. It's also not making a real choice of their own.

2.) In the United States, by law, kids are property. With very few exceptions, parents can raise them exactly as they see fit without much government interference unless there is documented proof of neglect, abuse, over working or withholding basic forms of education.

I personally am glad that parents do have the right to raise kids the way they see fit. I've seen people in other countries complaining about this.

That being said, some people will clearly not raise their kids the way you or I might think would be best. That is just part of the price for this sort of parental freedom that kids might, or might not, have to pay.

I really do not believe that kids should legally be property. Having been through a divorce and being treated as property when I was a child, I didn't find that a good thing. Having been through my own divorce and having my child treated as property by the courts was also not a good thing.

Children should have more rights in the courts. The courts should have the ability, particularly in divorce cases, to do what they think is best for the child and not rule a certain way because the kids are considered property of the parents.

It's a fine line though. I'm not sure where the best place to draw that line would be. As a home schooling parent, I am very glad we have this option. There are so many ways I'd rather not be interfered with by the government.

Most of the laws are based on well meant ideals but as applied by an institution or government become twisted into something that either makes no sense or is often, actually harmful.

3.) I agree it is the kids lives. They will have to make their own choices based not just on what they want but on what they feel is right and needed by others.

4.) Chaste programs and Just Say No programs do not work well for the majority of kids. We've seen that over and over again.

5.) This perception that home schooling parents are trying to limit and shield their kids knowledge is one of the reasons why I am so quick to point out that home schooling wasn't my idea. My kids begged me. I'm not doing it for political or religious reasons. I think a lot of people are doing it simply because they feel it's the best thing for their kids now as I do.

I truly wish I had thought of it on my own. I wish I had started with 5-K instead of sending them to their privileged school where they both had dangerous things happen. It's seems at our school the most incompetent teachers are given 5-K, possibly because they can't handle anything else.

We had a great pre school. I would do that again. After that I would home school the kids if I could go back.

6.) The problem with many schools here is that it's not about the kids or education. It's about running an institution smoothly and getting more funding each year. I could go on and on about schools but suffice it to say, anyone who is not happy with "strangers" teaching their kids, I completely understand their concerns. I think they are very valid concerns. All through the years, my kids learned many things I did not want them to learn.

These things included treating kids who were not the same exact age or grade negatively, also, being hyper competitive, resulting in acting mean to others. Insulting others is okay because even though the school handbooks says what the consequences will be no one in authority will do anything. There is more, much more, but I think you get the idea from that of what I didn't enjoy about an institution teaching my kids.

I would have never made a change though if they had been happy. I so wanted them to have the "normal" childhood as part of a "community" that I didn't have. My daughter became so unhappy in her seventh year of public schooling that I had to consider doing what they had begged me to do. My son had always hated public school. We moved here for the very good schools! *L*

I don't trust the current government at all particularly in it's witch hunt involving BDSM. Then again I've rarely trusted any government at any time for any reason. I tend to be rebellious when people (or governments for that matter) that I haven't agreed to give power over me, try to take power from me, in any form.

I hope all that makes sense.

Fury

 

[catalina_francisco]

Here are some facts about sex from the Durex Global sex survey 2005

• People worldwide are having sex for the first time at an average age of 17.3
• Just over a third (35%) say they were 16 or under when they lost their virginity
• Young people continue to have sex at an earlier age than previous generations: while the 25-34s lost their virginity at 17.9, the 21-24 year olds were 17.5 and 16-20 year olds were just 16.3
• Women are sexually active earlier than men - at 17.2 compared with 17.5
• The average age in the United States for losing their virginity is 16.9
  

[START OF RANT]
I am religious person, I am catholic, and I believe in God, the bible and the holy church, I even go to church on occasion. I also am a realist; I remember reading somewhere, he who is without sin throw the first stone. People make mistakes and people will have sex before marriage, to believe otherwise is to fool yourself.

As parents you do not have any rights, only obligations, and the most important one is to prepare your children for the real world. The real world, where people have sex and where people have STD’s and unwanted pregnancies. There is simply no excuse for this kind of behavior, religious beliefs or not, the fact remains that parents who do not correctly educate their children about the dangers are taking risks with their own children but not only with their own children, also with the children of all other parents their child comes in contact with.

I believe in religious freedom, but just as with all freedoms, they do not come for free, together with that freedom comes a responsibility to the society that fights for your religious freedom, the expectation to act as a responsible person and fulfill your duty to the society and your children.

If you take a look at the STDs in Adolescents and Young Adults article on http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats02/adol.htm you will find some alarming numbers especially about STD’s in young women. The fact remains that our youth are more susceptible to STD’s and the only real protection there is, is education and information.

The sad thing is that with all of the campaigning in favor of abstinence the rates of infection of STD’s has been slowly climbing again in recent years.

[END OF RANT]

Francisco

 

[Netzach]

I actually don't believe it is a parent's right to teach their children to have the same beliefs as they do. With my 2, I was careful from a very early age to tell them about things they wanted or needed to know, environmental, political, sex etc., but try and do it in a way which didn't say 'this is right because I think it is, and the rest are wrong', and pointed out to them they were to make their own choices, even if it conflicted with my own views.

Catalina

Uh that's still transmitting your particular beliefs and values.

 

[Netzach]

Personally, I don't consider myself a liberal. I view "liberal" as a smug, humanist, bunch of white males who "embrace diversity" and who "speak for the poor" and have no fundamental clue about experiences outside their own.

That said, I see this as vastly preferable to the paranoid preservation antics of self described conservatives, who only want to conserve a toxic and murderous status quo.

Bottom line, until the political landscape looks like the social landscape, forget it. And even after that, we know what's been done in the marxist and populist vein in other countries. I think local, as in the five people standing next to me, when I measure my quality of life.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Uh that's still transmitting your particular beliefs and values.

I guess if you want to look at it in a detached and extended way, but certainly not in presenting only views and values I follow or believe in. Similar to how I research and/or study anything, I presented a range of views and values (without judgemental views) and also gave them the freedom to access more from a variety of sources, and not just ones I chose or advocated. The discussions that happened around those bits of information were not based on how I personally felt, but more objective and factual as opposed to subjective and emotive. They were aware of many of my feelings, such as on gay issues simply from the friends I had and efforts I made in gay rights, but on many issues and topics they chose to hold an opposing opinion or make a different choice to what I would have.

The important thing for me was that they made those choices informed and unbiased, and that they knew whetever their choices were I would support and respect them. LOL, I certainly appreciate it these days with the freedom my daughter and I have in discussing anything and everything, and especially that she trusts me enough to give her an honest and objective response whenever she needs to talk about something deeper than girl talk...and that she has no discomfort in raising those topics, or in sharing personal things with me few others know, or in some cases no-one else knows...it touches me deeply to have her trust and respect on that level and she herself says it comes from my never pushing my views and values down their throats, or blocking their experience and knowledge of the world by presenting them with just my own thoughts and beliefs.

Catalina

 

[LoneOne]

Ok,a good sex ed. is something I absolutly favor (a good sex ed. this is).

Think about it, 3-4 weeks ago we had a birth by the youngest mother here in germany, 11 years old. (At age 16 I have known a girl who had her first birth with 12 years, reason where very unfriedly circumstances but this young girl now is just... well, uneducated)

I think this is the reason we should work on it. I have seen and spoken to people age 16 up who do not know how to use a condom (some funny guy thought you can use it two times by turning the outside inward... and the scary thing is, he was serious about that)

Ok, that's the way here in germany, we have boys and girls who have sex for the first time at the age of 15 (14 for girls) (average of an statistic made 2005 I think) and I don't know why? Our sex ed is not the best I think, as far as I remember we did not even talk about STD's, we did not use a banana for condom-practice and the only thing I remember is "This is the vagina (behind me giggles) teacher points towards picture"-talk. This was 1996.

As far as I'm informed not much has changed since my sex ed. 1996.
Oh and alternetive lifestyles... most of my teachers never heard of it... BDSM, homosexuality... "not part of this" they said, a matter best put aside.

Well... I was better informed then my teacher back then so, what should I say... a 1 in biology (this is your grade A, best if I'm not mistaken. As I always say theory 1A - practice N/A, still a virgin)

edited the "first sex age", searched for the statistic

 

[BeachGurl2]

I guess if you want to look at it in a detached and extended way, but certainly not in presenting only views and values I follow or believe in. Similar to how I research and/or study anything, I presented a range of views and values (without judgemental views) and also gave them the freedom to access more from a variety of sources, and not just ones I chose or advocated. The discussions that happened around those bits of information were not based on how I personally felt, but more objective and factual as opposed to subjective and emotive. They were aware of many of my feelings, such as on gay issues simply from the friends I had and efforts I made in gay rights, but on many issues and topics they chose to hold an opposing opinion or make a different choice to what I would have.

The important thing for me was that they made those choices informed and unbiased, and that they knew whetever their choices were I would support and respect them. LOL, I certainly appreciate it these days with the freedom my daughter and I have in discussing anything and everything, and especially that she trusts me enough to give her an honest and objective response whenever she needs to talk about something deeper than girl talk...and that she has no discomfort in raising those topics, or in sharing personal things with me few others know, or in some cases no-one else knows...it touches me deeply to have her trust and respect on that level and she herself says it comes from my never pushing my views and values down their throats, or blocking their experience and knowledge of the world by presenting them with just my own thoughts and beliefs.

Catalina

Catalina, I know exactly what you're saying. I think it's very important that my girls understand exactly what I believe and why. But they also need to know that there are opposing views, what those opposing views are and why. Otherwise, how will THEY make up THEIR OWN MINDS? My 18yo knows that she can talk to me about any subject, no matter what, and she will never be judged by me for being who she is and believing what she believes. Funny thing is that on many things we agree, but we also have many things we disagree on. She still comes to talk to me about it first. And that's the point, as far as I'm concerned. She trusts me and values what I have to say. And she's educated. Which is the most important thing to me.

 

[shy slave]

Personally, I don't consider myself a liberal. I view "liberal" as a smug, humanist, bunch of white males who "embrace diversity" and who "speak for the poor" and have no fundamental clue about experiences outside their own.

That said, I see this as vastly preferable to the paranoid preservation antics of self described conservatives, who only want to conserve a toxic and murderous status quo.

Bottom line, until the political landscape looks like the social landscape, forget it. And even after that, we know what's been done in the marxist and populist vein in other countries. I think local, as in the five people standing next to me, when I measure my quality of life.

I love your take on liberal and conservatives.

Having been someone who was poor, unemployed, single parent etc etc it was amusing (and irratating) to hear about how my life must be via news articles, television and people who have never had to make the decison "Do I buy food or electric?"

I also agree about the vast differences between the political and social landscape in each country.

There will always be a gap and a monetary value will always be apart of that gap.

I love the UK, but I recognise its not perfect.
Some countries do things differently from the UK,
sometimes different means better,
sometimes different means worse,
sometimes it just means different.