From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Picking and Choosing our References
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:55:35 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <95303@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> In article <12107@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #I don't "utterly reject the authority of the government," but
# #rather, reject the unlimited authority of the government to do
# #anything and everything that it wishes.  The Constitution was
# #intended to be a restraint on government power -- and ever since,
# #those limitations have been "interpreted" away.
# 
# Curious to know what your "interpretation" of free speech is.
# Is it unlimited like your interpretation of FOA, or do you agree
# with the traditional interpretation, which is that first amendment
# rights may not be infringed on the basis of content (accept with
# "compelling state interest"---which I would disagree with) but CAN
# be restricted with respect to time, place, and manner?

Free speech was originally intended in a considerably more limited
form than at present -- as primarily a protection against prior
restraint.  Libel and slander laws protected only after the fact.
Laws against obscene material have always been found constitutional,
though what constitutes "obscene" has changed over time.  (I find
such laws silly, but not unconstitutional).

# What makes FOA so special that you are not satisfied to do it with
# your family, friends, and church? You are perfectly able to be
# a heterosexist bigot in that company if you wish!

You are perfectly able to be a homosexual in private.  You don't
have to announce everywhere you go, and thus make it an issue to
employers or landlords.

# Why do you have to need to affect other people's lives in areas which
# many consider to be public necessities, that is, shelter and work?

Because those public necessities are not monopolies.  There is an
enormous amount of competition in both shelter and work, and
increasing state power should always be viewed with extreme
prejudice.

# [on Paul's assertion that government is divinely inspired:]
# #In fact, I am considered a bit of skeptic in most churches I've
# #attended.  I ask unpleasant questions about these sort of issues,
# #and what did the word that was used in Greek mean, and how do we
# #know what constitutes a general admonition, and what was specific
# #to a time and place.
# 
# Excellent! This is the first sign you've given me that you don't
# swallow myths about sexuality whole...I hope you make more progress...

The only myths I've swallowed whole were the ones about homosexuals
being just like ordinary people, except for their sexual preference.

# #Why? [...] because a few homosexuals I've run into over the years
# #were relatively normal people (though most were at least a little odd). 
# #But soc.motss, the parades, and the generally infantile behavior that
# #has been demonstrated on USENET by homosexuals, persuaded me that the
# #media were lying to me.
# 
# For such a skeptic, you appear to be awfully gullible.
# 
# kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,

You mean I should ignore what the homosexual community is clearly
broadcasting?  I should ignore you when you say that the homosexual
community is divided about sex with children?



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes