From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:35:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.202927.26253@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <1992Aug12.164927.22851@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug12.035320.30173@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes
>> >In  <1992Aug12.015502.23325@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Cha
>> >> In article <darkstar.713555397@milton> darkstar@milton.u.washington.edu (Alde
>> >> >chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>===========================================================================
>> >> >>               I only battle the strongest.
>> >> >>===========================================================================
>> >> >
>> >> >Thought I answered this already.  I answered your assertion about
>> >> >adult/child sex, and you never answered, even though you asserted in the
>> >> >same post that I wouldn't answer, and that you'd keep bugging me until I
>> >> >did.  Ha!
>> >>
>> >> >I'm still waiting for your proof that "pro-choice = pro-child/adult sex."
>> >>
>> >> If you put it in this news thread, it was in my KILLfile (anything
>> >> about religious debates, goes there). Right now, I'm scouring for any
>> >> possible lost.Kaufman.posts, so I see your article now.
>> >
>> >Uh-huh.  Riiiight.
>>
>> Margolis, if you thought I couldn't respond to this,
>
>No, I think you can't respond *intelligently*.  And my expression of
>disbelief was directed at your assertion that you didn't see it before
>because you killfiled it and you see it now because your searching for
>something else.

This thread "Some gods..." was KILLfile'd because it was a religious
debate which was going nowhere and I don't generally get bothered with
that stuff. 

It popped up again when I was looking for Mark Kaufman's drivel, and
when I took it out of the KILLfile, I ran into an answer to my
challenge, as posted above. 

So I answered it right away. Intellegently.  

>> why am I responding to it now?
>
>Because he said he's still waiting and you couldn't ignore it again?

Dream on. 

>> >> 1) Did Judge Lockett say that the right to privacy meant an
>> >> invalidation of statutory rape?
>> >> YES.
>> >
>> >No.  Did he say that the right to privacy meant it's OK to take advantage
>> >of someone incapable of giving consent due to intoxication?  Due to
>> >mental retardation?  Looks like you don't know what "statutory rape"
>> >means other than your masturbatory fantasies.
>>
>> I thought you knew I meant the adult/child part of the statutory rape
>> laws and that it was understood that this part was the one specified.
>
>I addressed what you said, which is incorrect.

Well, now, I've specified: the adult/child part of the statutory rape
law has been invalidated in Florida. Kind of like a state-sized RvW,
this time with no stated exceptions to the invalidation. 

Did you know that when a judge strikes down a law and doesn't give any
if's, and's or but's, as Jerry Lockett did, the law is dead? No...
you're too busy basking in your ego, dreaming that you proved me wrong
and that I couldn't turn your case upside down. 

>> FACT: he did say it meant the right to do it if they give consent.
>
>Still wrong - if they gave consent due to intoxication, it's still
>statutory rape.

If the kid's not intoxicated or mentally retarded, it's okay in
Florida for them to have illicit relationships with adults. This is
something that, seeing as it has been legally declared a "cousin"
principle to abortion rights, will become a public relations
nightmare. 

Have you yet gotten it into your thick skull that the actions
legalized in Florida by Lockett, will neither be welcomed nor allowed 
by the horrendously vasy majority of Americans? You try and tell 250
million Americans that it should be legal for adults to have sex with
kids... _IF THEY'RE NOT DRUNK_ ... and if they consent to it. About
the only safe place for you would be the communal tents in Berkeley,
perhaps, but don't even _THINK_ about being elected to office
supporting that outrageous ideology. 

And it'll be the job of us pro-lifers to remind Americans that it was
ruled on the same basis that made abortion legal. When that hits the
fan, your pro-choice population can join you in Berkeley. And stay
there. 

And here we were, worrying about your "pro-life -> forced organ
donation" scenario. Well, the "pro-choice -> legal adult/child sex" 
scenario is no scenario - it's a Florida court ruling.  

Happy dreams, kid. You're gonna need them. 

>> >Also, note that you only attempted (and failed) to prove that statutory
>> >rape is now legal in Florida.  You in no way addressed the question at hand:
>> >> >I'm still waiting for your proof that "pro-choice = pro-child/adult sex."
>>
>> Yes I did.
>
>No, you didn't even come close.

Well, how's this for a direct hit on your head? 

You remind me of a rat who knows they took a bad turn and that within
a few meters, they'll be cornered. You keep running semantically from
the facts, hoping I'll slip somewhere. NOT. You know as well as anyone
else that in Florida, they stuck legal adult/child sex on the same
_EXACT_ bandwagon as legal abortion, and that when Americans see it,
your cause is going to be driven right to shit city. 

You just want to cloud up this issue with "but what about
intoxication - you didn't mention that!" and "but what about the
orbital formulas for Dan King's helmetless spacesuit?", but you know
the facts of the ruling, and they are that, without any exceptions (he
didn't mention any, did he?), adults can sleep with kids. Well, of
course, not if the kid's drunk. 

I would rather have a whole Supreme Court full of conservative judges
that would keep bullshit rulings like that from surviving, but why
stop the Jerry Lockett's of this world? Let them put more and more
vile stuff on the bandwagon that carries pro-choice. And when millions
of Americans get tired of it and start cleaning house, we can throw it
out - pro-choice and all. 

>> Adult/child sex is legal in Florida if consent is given.
>> Judge Lockett did not say, "But only in the cases that I tried, is it
>> legal." He simply said, "It is legal. Laws against it are
>> unconstitutional."
>
>Statutory rape covers other things besides adult/child sex.  As I pointed
>out above, these other things are still illegal.  When you make a blanket
>statement about "statutory rape", you're addressing *all* the relevant
>statutes.

Well, let me specify - AGAIN. The ADULT/CHILD part of statutory rape
laws.

>> Would you, Larry Margolis, care to address this directly, rather than
>> weaseling over to statutory rape laws concerning subjects outside of
>> what I originally said: adults messing around with kids.
>
>In what I responded to, you simply said statutory rape.  I corrected you.
>You *still* haven't addressed the question at hand:
>>> >I'm still waiting for your proof that "pro-choice = pro-child/adult sex."
>
>If it will help, you can assume that pro-choice implies "opposed to
>parental consent for abortion".  What you would have to do to prove
>your assertion is to prove that being opposed to parental consent
>for abortion means being in favor of adult/child sex.  Hint:  the fact that
>a judge in Florida ruled that the right to privacy which invalidated
>Florida's parental consent law also invalidated a law against consensual
>sex with a minor doesn't mean that someone in favor of the former is also
>in favor of the latter.

So what? So you're not in favor of the latter. The latter is a
consistent outgrowth of the premise of the former. Its being there is
not necessitated by whether or not pro-choice wants it there. 

Its being there is the result of pro-choice being around in the first
place. If you don't want it there, rip out the roots of legal abortion
or else let it all stay and make room for more. 

Hint: adult/child sex being legal, is attached to pro-choice legal
interpretation in Florida, whether or the pro-choicers want it there 
or not. You cannot legally have one without the other, in Florida. 
Anyone betting on California, NY or Washington for another Lockett
ruling? Make that another 10 feet down in the hole for pro-choice, for
every state that it spreads to. 




>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)


===============================================================================
		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
	        With the little girl's consent, of course. 
		 Don't you pro-choicers just _hate_ this? 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton