I shouldn't even be posting this, really. I mean, we all know exactly how this thread will proceed. Still, this made the vein on my forehead throb.
Posted by thoughtcriminal84 (Member # 480) on :
I feel stupid for asking, but is this a hoax?
Posted by Jernau Morat Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :
Don't tell me they're ACTUALLY trying to put that through Congress!?!
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I think its through Washington's (the state, not the city) State Senate, not through the national one, right?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
If this senator truly exists, he's an idiot, and should be recalled on grounds of incompetence. The Declaration of Independence isn't a law or any kind of governing document It is, at best, a statement of principles. It has no grounds being used to determine what is or is not science.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Oh, it'll pass, no problem.
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
Now in Theatres: Inherit the Wind II. The bodies of Brady and Drummond are dug up from the earth and cloned by mad scientists. The Final Battle begins......
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
He's my senator, actually, at least as far as geography goes.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I don't usually reccommend this, but a Boot to the Head is in order.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Senator Hochstatter has the logical abilities of a ham sandwich. Without cheese.
The Declaration of Independence has no legal or binding power whatsoever. Moreover, it is probably the pinnacle of political deistic Enlightenment thinking.
To say that the DOI's statement of a Creator to be ipso-facto self-evidence of that Creator is rather lacking in evidence to say the least. And to call for singular teaching of creation based on the DOI is lunacy.
quote:that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it,
Simon, you may now, using principles not repugnant to the principles of the Declaration of Independence, oust Senator Hochstatter from office.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Of course, the fact that someone so mindboggingly stupid is even in a position of power to propose this in the first place allows me to sleep easily at night.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
But you live in the UK, Liam Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
Sol, please tell me your 18 and are registered?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Well, he's over 18...
Cartmen: Yes, I do. And that's why I sleep soundly. Do you see? Ahhhhhhh.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I'm 21.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
He can drink.
Legally.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Fra Angelica is good.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Bass Ale. Yum.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
He can also have gay sex.
Actually, I have no idea what the age is there. It's 18 here, and knowing your backwards laws, homosexual sex is probably banned before 30, and nuclear warhead ownership is allowed if you no longer need a bib.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
In most places, I suspect it's banned completely. Last I heard, I think oral sex is illegal here (Missouri), too. Oops.
Posted by The Antagonist (Member # 484) on :
Hey Sol, frome whence did you drag this up? I live in clark county on the border of Oregon in Washington, and I haven't heard anything about this on local news or even through word of mouth.
[ January 29, 2002, 23:49: Message edited by: The Antagonist ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Okay, I was wrong. Oral sex (along w/ anal sex and hand-jobs, even) is defined as "deviate sexual intercourse", but not illegal in and of itself. However, "deviate sexual intercourse" is illegal in matters of underage or same-sex partners.
So, apparently, in Missouri, gay sex can get you up to a year in prison.
Posted by thoughtcriminal84 (Member # 480) on :
from evolution to how to get locked up for deviant sex, in the span of twenty or so posts.
God, I love the internet.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I found the link to the bill at Boing Boing: A Directory of Wonderful Things. It consisted of just the bill itself. I've yet to see a news story about it. But then I haven't been looking very hard.
Here's a bit of official information about Senator Hochstatter.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:Bass Ale. Yum.
MMMMM thats good Bass
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I notice that Simon was strangely quiet on the gay sex matter...
So it's illegal to have gay sex in some American states? How widespread is that?
Posted by The Antagonist (Member # 484) on :
It varies from state to state. The act of having homosexual intercourse, or deviant sex behaviour (no, I'm not a brit, but ever since the Behaviour group it just seems like the right way to spell the word) may both be legal in one state, but only one is legal in another, or vice versa, or none at all. I can understand some types of 'deviant' behaviour being illegal (I know I'm going to get slammed for that one by somebody), but others really are a personal choice for citizens, and state governments have no right in dictating such a thing. Its quite unfortunate that these types of things are such touchy (no pun) issues that people are embarrased to bring them up when legalizing them.
As of now, the only thing that stands between same sex marriages in some states is popular opinion, as the general population doesn't approve, thus drafted measures that come up on ballots every few years keep getting shot down, or worse, not even getting onto the ballot because lobbyists can't gather enough signatures to even get it to that point.
The signature gathering in Washington has gotten much more difficult lately because a neasure was passed to ban signature solicitation at public/corporation owned paces, such as supermarkets.
This basically means that even though I am old enough to vote I can't vote on anything worth while unless its every ten years or so. Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I can understand some types of 'deviant' behaviour being illegal..."
Like what? Here in Missouri, the definition is:
"(1) 'Deviate sexual intercourse', any act involving the genitals of one person and the hand, mouth, tongue, or anus of another person or a sexual act involving the penetration, however slight, of the male or female sex organ or the anus by a finger, instrument or object done for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person;" -Missouri Revised Statutes, title XXXVIII, chapter 566, section 010
I can't see anything in there that I would make illegal. Hell, I've done most of those things, and would do most of the rest...
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
So you can have sex, just don't have fun doing it.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
We're looking at two different definitions of 'deviate' here: the first was used in the context of someone referring to acts he might class as deviate, that may or may not be illegal; then you have the Missouri statute which classes certain illegal acts and refers to them as deviate.
Sp, my question is, what acts would lot lot call deviate, regardless of their legal status?
Posted by Tora Ziyal (Member # 53) on :
Who cares? The law shouldn't have a say on your sex life, period.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Amen to that -- !
Posted by The Antagonist (Member # 484) on :
Oh, I agree totally, except for one possible exception:
Multiple partners at once. Now that deviant.
*shiver* Sorry, I have a thing against screwing more than one partner at a time.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:Who cares? The law shouldn't have a say on your sex life, period.
Yes I agree, if anyone should tell you you can't have deviant sex it should be your wife (or significant other)
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I have no problem with the law having a minimum age for sexual intercourse (straight and gay). If you have to be a certain age to drive, drink, and shoot your neighbours with a gun, then you should have to be a certain age before you can do the sex thing.
As for deviant, hmm. If by deviant, you include stuff that makes me say "In god's name why?", I'd probably include felching. In fact, the whole rear hole area doesn't appeal to me, not when the front one is so much nicer (well, not nicer to look at, perhaps. And smell-wise, it's pretty even, but it does have easier access, and is slightly less painful for both parties. I've never been a fan of people who come in the back door).
What are we talking about again?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
You tell me.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I totally agree with Liam.
Oh, pick your jaw up off the floor.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
About the age thing, the gay thing, the felching thing, or the anal option?
Posted by thoughtcriminal84 (Member # 480) on :
I've got no problem with anything my partner (partner? when the fuck did that become an acceptable way of talking about a girlfiend/boyfriend? did I miss something? a partner is somebody you start a buisness with, or somebody you fight crime with) wants to do. Unless somebody gets hurt.
Namely me. She's into wierd, unnamed sexual practices, where she gives--and likes to receive-- oral pleasure. it's deviant, but, lock me up, damnit, because it ain't stopping.
In all seriousness, why did these laws become laws in the first place? Or, Now that we're not hallucinating on a daily basis like some of the earlier generations apparently were, why haven't we overturned them, called them invalid? The fact that they're still on the books bothers me.
[ February 02, 2002, 00:08: Message edited by: thoughtcriminal84 ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
What part of "totally" didn't you get, Liam?
There's nothing twisted about oral. There's nothing twisted about dual-partners, either.
Because _I_ can't be twisted. No.
"Why are you making me know this?" -- cdck
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Yeah but you didn't answer the anal bit, Rob.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:In fact, the whole rear hole area doesn't appeal to me, not when the front one is so much nicer (well, not nicer to look at, perhaps. And smell-wise, it's pretty even, but it does have easier access, and is slightly less painful for both parties. I've never been a fan of people who come in the back door).
Liam said this, I agreed with it (as part of my total agreement with his entire post). How much clearer could it possibly be?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:There's nothing twisted about oral. There's nothing twisted about dual-partners, either.
Yeah, but you didn't say it here so I was just wondering if you and Julia ... well, nevermind.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Well, the whole dual-partners thing happened around three years before I met Julie.
The rest is NOYDB. Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
You know, Rob, for someone who says his sex life is none of anyone's damn business, you sure do talk about it alot.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Yeah.
You've caught me out on that one.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Well, now we're getting somewhere.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Although Rob isn't the first one to suddenly start blabbering about his sex life suddenly. Chuckie was similar...
Posted by G.K Nimrod (Member # 205) on :
Now that was funny. When asking www.askjeeves.com about "what is felching", it suggested I check this preanswered question, with multiple choices.
"Where can I learn about the sexual practice 1: Vaginal intercourse 2: Anal fisting 3: Anal intercourse 4: Cunnilingus 5: Analingus 6: Fellatio 7: Foreplay 8: Oral sex ...aaand number nine, from tonight's top-ten list; Vaginal fisting
You don't hear that every day at the internet info-sites... *Man comes into library* "Yes, hello old chap! Tell me, where can I learn more about vaginal fisting? Yes, the wife again. She'll be the death of me, by jove!"
[ February 04, 2002, 14:03: Message edited by: G.K Nimrod ]
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
There's nothing like a nice romantic fisting.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Hmm, seven and a half out of nine. Not bad if I say so myself. Well, I have to say so myself, any of you lot will probably say that's really bad. 8)
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
It is quite bad if you don't know what 7 and a half things on that list are Lee. Exactly what are you doing? Putting it in her ear?
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:5: Analingus
Not to be confused with Ireland's national airline, of course.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Service is the same though Tom.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
*sigh* I was talking about things I've done. How many do YOU clock up then? 8)
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I am refusing to rise to this game of "I've had the hot sex better behold my mighty penis nyah nyah nyah", plus I'm not really the most adventurous person. More than one, less than nine.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Five.
Hey, you asked...
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Five, if you count receiving. Of course, 8 shouldn't really count, as it comprises 4 and 6.
And 7 could include 4 and 6 as well.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Well, of course receiving counts! And you're right, 4 and 6 do count both as oral sex, but given each act is also mentioned individually I chose to count "oral sex" as both at the same time. 8)
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Handy to have, espeically in my situation. Woot.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Oh goodie, now we have to put up with Tim walking around, chest puffed out, penis errect, shouting behold my partially-used instrument! My manness is awesome, and could be in you today!"
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Yeah, but at least we were in blissful ignorance of this fact, until you chose to bring it to our attention. B(
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Oh, I didn't even think about the fact that receiving counts. Six, then. :-�
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Though I'm not at all sure the thread can support it, I've got some more information about what it used to be about.
Today, the 12th of February, happens to be Charles Darwin's birthday. In recognition of this, CWU, which happens to be my school of the moment, held a sort of 'let's get to know Darwin/evolution' affair this evening. Included on the panel were two professors of biology, a Methodist minister, and the honorable Senator Hochstetter, who happens to be the local representative. Senator Hochstetter is also the sponsor of some legislation whose relationship to evolutionary biology is, shall we say, antagonistic.
Each panelist had something like 20 minutes in which to make a small presentation. There was a brief biography of Darwin, a very brief summation of the past 150 years of evolutionary sciences, an interesting discussion of the connnections between faith and science, and, finally, the Senator's presentation, titled "We have reason to be uneasy," taken, so he said, from a passage (or perhaps a book title) by C.S. Lewis.
The Senator's position was this, essentially:
1.) It is illegal for the state of Washington to sponser anything which contradicts the Constitution of the United States of America or the principles thereof, which are, according to the Senator, summed up in the Declaration of Independance.
2.) The Declaration of Independance states that the source of rights is "the Creator." The Senator did not go into the exact nature of this entity.
3.) Evolution denies that human rights extend from a creator of any kind.
4.) Therefore it is illegal to teach it in a public school.
This was not, however, the meat of the argument. The Senator went on to describe how evolution is responsible, apparently primarily so, for the deaths of several hundred million people during the 20th century. Furthermore, via examples of the so called Piltdown and Nebraska man hoaxes of the early part of this century and that prior, the Senator claimed that the scientific community has been silent and refused to address any of the precepts of evolutionary theory, or indeed allow close examination of any of its scientific results.
Lastly, the Senator intimated that, since the "sources" of evolution and the United States of America are so different, it was difficult (though he did not say impossible, nor, in fact, explicitly say any of this) to imagine someone being able to support both.
The Senator ended his talk with a paraphrased story from the book of...John, I believe, about two apostles running to the tomb of Christ to discover his absence, and then running out into the rest of the world to spread the news. "What tomb," the Senator then asked, "are you running to?"
In conclusion: this author strained his eye muscles thanks to a repetitive rolling motion. Prior to this evening, I considered this entire issue weird, but not actively dangerous. Legislators have a habit of writing bills they know cannot pass to curry favor with certain members of their constituancy. The morality of that is debatable, I suppose, but it's clearly not illegal, nor do I think it really should be.
But to imply that people who believe in evolution are somehow anti-freedom and un-American, especially in times such as these, goes far beyond the bounds of reasonable realpolitik, in my opinion.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...the Constitution of the United States of America or the principles thereof, which are, according to the Senator, summed up in the Declaration of Independance."
Perhaps I'm just un-American, but wouldn't the priniciples of the Constitution be summed up in the Constitution? And wouldn't anything summed up in the DoI be the priniciples of the DoI?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I think the idea was that it represents the principles of the US as a nation, rather than the constitution specifically. Sorry.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
The esteemed gentleman from Washington is a nutball. I, a nonscientist, would eat him alive in a debate. I am certain an evolutionary scientist and/or the folks at talk.origins would not only eat him alive, but painlessly (for them)regurgitate him in a mess in the porcelain god.
quote:the scientific community has been silent and refused to address any of the precepts of evolutionary theory, or indeed allow close examination of any of its scientific results.
My aunt Ruth, they have. Ignorant savage.
Where's this guy's political web page? I have a scalding email to write!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)