Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Feb 22, 2005.
Great. What's that sound? Oh yeah. Freedom shrinking some more.
gotta agree with you there
Maybe I'm just not thinking this through properly, but what is a "legislative" sexual aid? What's a law enforcement one for that matter?
But don't you lot live in the "land of the free"?
George W keeps saying it's all for the freedom loving peoples of the world, isn't that you all?
Freedom, Justice, Liberty DOES NOT = U.S.A.
Anyone think the Supremes would have gone this way if Kerry would have won in November? They know which way the wind blows and it isn't blowing in the direction of personal liberty or freedom from government intrusion into our private lives. Time to start organizing for 2006.
Sorry I just have to.............Monica Lewinski
brahahaha ... come on ... could it get more ridiculous ? ...so much for the land of the free...
but i have to say ... having the only sex-toy shop here across the street from the only mcdonalds is somehow comical ... it's rather amusing to look at the products while eating a burger (and before somebody says something: the products are kid safe they keep the 18+ stuff inside of the store ...)
Why is Govt involved in our bedrooms? what is next for the police state? tell when us to go bathroom and how to do it? America's freedoms & libertys have been widdled down by politicians who think govt is a cure all for everything they dont like including your sex life. So drugs to give you a boner is fine but toys are not. I wonder if this would happen if the pharmaceutical companies were selling these things? Govt gone haywire again. We should hold our officials more accountable on everything! while they cant seem to stop those illegal mexicans from walking in yet they can catch those moms selling sex toys...Amazing
What?? I find that statement to be totally incomprehensible. How do you ban sex toys and stay out of people's bedrooms at the same time?
That the Supremes would reach this kind of ruling, even without Rehnquist currently on the bench, is amazing, and is still more evidence of the dangerous, unconstitutional turn this court has taken. Of course, since the court defines "unconstitutional", this portends big trouble. We apparently have a Supreme Court that seems to interpret the constitution in arbitrary and capricious ways. (Does anybody know on what constitutional grounds the Supremes rejected the appeal? Or how they could basically contradict their own ruling in the case of the Texas sodomy law?)
I'm really kind of stunned at this. Libertarians must rightfully be crying bloody murder.
Since this has now gone through the Supreme Court and is the Law of the Land, do you know what it would take to reverse it? A constitutional amendment. Could you just picture that?
If we ever get out of this hell-hole of Puritan oppression and liberalism becomes in vogue again in this country, we'd have to pass The Twenty-Eighth Amendment: something like, "Congress shall make no law restricting the sale of sexual items for consensual purposes."
Did I mention I'm moving to Canada?
This is why we have checks and balances. I have found out in my years of dealing with the federal,state and local govts they all have 1 thing in common. Wanting more and more say on what we think, how we live and what we do and then wanting money from us so they can tell us how to live. Libertarians do look pretty good these days.
This is confusing. Because I couldn't find the original law, does anyone know if this is analgous to some drug laws that have been floating around? I mean, it is illegal to sell these devices in Alabama. Is it legal to own them? Or to buy them, either out-of-state or via the internet?
If so, then what is the point? If not, then it really doesn't stay out of the bedroom. If it is the latter, then how to you enforce this? What happened to the promotion of free-market ideology?
Is this aimed at keeping "undesireable" items out of the public sphere, as it might offend or corrupt? Then is pornography covered by this law? If not, then what the hell does this do?
That's right, sex is bad. You heard it here first.
Yes, that was the obvious joke. Of course, it's also incorrect. That would be executive.
But seriously, what the hell do those terms mean? What is a law enforcement sexual aid?
No, married heterosexual sex in one's bedroom with the lights out for the purpose of reproduction is good; all other sex is bad. Oh, yes, missionary position only and you can't enjoy it.
Bedroom evangelism? I have heard God mentioned from time to time...
Seriously, like in many walks-of-life, the worst actions stem from insecurity, which ironically, seems to often stem from a lack of faith. Pathetic.
You forgot the rhythm method.
You're right, of course, but I've always thought this a contradiction. Doesn't the rhythm method imply that you have actually thought about sex! Shouldn't this all be left to god's will?
Caution: Alabama Payed members forbidden:
This thread can't go any further without this.
That Steve...always coming up with The Next Big Thing.
So to speak.
Alabama Senate Bill 607, passed in 1998, says, "It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly distribute, possess with intent to distribute, or offer or agree to distribute any obscene material or any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs for any thing of pecuniary value." So, it is illegal to sell those devices in Alabama; it is legal to buy them out-of-state or via the Internet, and it is legal to possess them.
This story is getting a lot of press coverage here in the Huntsville area because the plaintiff (Sherri Williams) is a local business owner. See this Web site for her side of the story. (If it matters, this one is "safe for work"; it's not her business' web site).
What is your opinion, here? Do you understand the motive(s) behind this law? As stated in my above post, I sure don't.
*EDIT* So does this law cover pornography? What is the standard of "obscene"? Is it well-defined?
Can these devices still be sold if marketed for something else, even if it is obviously spurious (like drug paraphanalia in many states)?
It just seems like this is a way for the state to shake-down certain types of business for revenue, through arbitrary prosecution (resulting in fines and court fees etc.), under the guise of morality.
the way i read it, it's also legal to give them away.
Will you still be allowed to buy the Gillette M3 Power razor? Or will that now be banned?