TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › ACLU is at it again.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ACLU is at it again.

post #1 of 51
1/16/08 at 7:58am
Thread Starter 
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/ap/20080116...l-1be00ca.html


They think it should be okay to have sexual intercourse in a closed public bathroom stall. Great.


First they defend members of N.A.M.B.L.A. (North American Man-Boy Lovers Association) and now this. Pathetic
Reply
post #2 of 51
1/16/08 at 9:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/ap/20080116...l-1be00ca.html


They think it should be okay to have sexual intercourse in a closed public bathroom stall. Great.


First they defend members of N.A.M.B.L.A. (North American Man-Boy Lovers Association) and now this. Pathetic
Ok! Yuck!

Anyone that would even want to have sex in a public bathroom stall has to be a tad flaky. And it's flakier still for an organization to think that it's ok.

And that NAMBLA thing is just creepy
Reply
post #3 of 51
1/16/08 at 9:52am
IMO they should be banned from anything - they do far more HARM then good for the people's rights!
Reply
post #4 of 51
1/16/08 at 10:39am
The ACLU should be dismembered and dissolved... end of story!

Weirdos...
Reply
post #5 of 51
1/16/08 at 11:03am
ACLU. When will people wise up to their agenda????
Reply
post #6 of 51
1/16/08 at 12:29pm
I don't understand how sex in a "public" toilet - within earshot and potentially eyeshot of other bathroom users, can possibly be considered to be private!

Public now equates to private? 'Scuse me?!?
Reply
post #7 of 51
1/16/08 at 12:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GingersMom View Post
I don't understand how sex in a "public" toilet - within earshot and potentially eyeshot of other bathroom users, can possibly be considered to be private!

Public now equates to private? 'Scuse me?!?
I can't see it any other way either !!!
Reply
post #8 of 51
1/16/08 at 1:00pm
A 'reasonable expectation of privacy' applies, IMO. Do you expect someone to be filming you when you pee? How are all the cases of people who install cameras in the toilets in public restrooms prosecuted if they aren't violating any privacy?

That, and these laws are used to persecute gay men. Gay men making bad choices by having anonymous, and therefore risky, sexual encounters, but the people prosecuted for these crimes are always gay men. Somehow, couples who join the mile-high club or have sex in a bar bathroom are different, cause, you know, they're straight.

I expected some sort of debate in this thread, rather than the same tired old ACLU bashing.
Reply
post #9 of 51
1/16/08 at 1:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
A 'reasonable expectation of privacy' applies, IMO. Do you expect someone to be filming you when you pee? How are all the cases of people who install cameras in the toilets in public restrooms prosecuted if they aren't violating any privacy?

That, and these laws are used to persecute gay men. Gay men making bad choices by having anonymous, and therefore risky, sexual encounters, but the people prosecuted for these crimes are always gay men. Somehow, couples who join the mile-high club or have sex in a bar bathroom are different, cause, you know, they're straight.

I expected some sort of debate in this thread, rather than the same tired old ACLU bashing.
Many of the threads started recently just don't foster intelligent discussion, i.e., are unsuitable for this forum. I tried to play devil's advocate in one thread http://www.thecatsite.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=154493 , but all that did was underline that there's very little discussion going on at the moment, although there are some exceptions.

And, to get back to the topic, why hasn't anybody else commented on this quote from the article?
Quote:
It cited a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling 38 years ago that found that people who have sex in closed stalls in public restrooms "have a reasonable expectation of privacy."
Reply
post #10 of 51
1/16/08 at 1:35pm
Well it was on the news last nite, but I kinda dismissed it as being pretty stupid and not that attention worthy.
Reply
post #11 of 51
1/16/08 at 1:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
Many of the threads started recently just don't foster intelligent discussion, i.e., are unsuitable for this forum. I tried to play devil's advocate in one thread http://www.thecatsite.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=154493 , but all that did was underline that there's very little discussion going on at the moment, although there are some exceptions.

And, to get back to the topic, why hasn't anybody else commented on this quote from the article?
But 38 years ago people were having sex on the grass at the Washington Mall and on the front lawns of universities all over the US. Not to mention on rooftops, balconies, picnic tables in national parks......
Reply
post #12 of 51
1/16/08 at 1:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
But 38 years ago people were having sex on the grass at the Washington Mall and on the front lawns of universities all over the US. Not to mention on rooftops, balconies, picnic tables in national parks......
Free love...ahhhhh, the good old days.

I personally didn't think I was bashing the ACLU in particular, just this one "case."

If sex in public bathrooms is supposed to be considered to be private, then George Michael ought to be hiring another lawyer!

And let me pose THIS question: With all the people complaining that no one can agree on anything, why do the threads that folks are posting in agreement with each other get attacked for not posing enough "discussion points?"

I'm not sure how to take that...
Reply
post #13 of 51
1/16/08 at 1:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
But 38 years ago people were having sex on the grass at the Washington Mall and on the front lawns of universities all over the US. Not to mention on rooftops, balconies, picnic tables in national parks......
Well, I was only 12 then, so I missed out!

Seriously, though, why are so many "man-hours" wasted on pursuing, arresting, and prosecuting adults for consensual sex? Wouldn't the personnel and time be put to better use chasing down pedophiles and rapists?
Reply
post #14 of 51
1/16/08 at 2:02pm
Hey, maybe we actually do have a debatable point. The man was not charged with any kind of sexual offence, he was charged with disorderly conduct. So how is this action by the ACLU supposed to be of help to him? It may even be harmful, because if he is allowed a reasonable expectation of privacy, isn't the person in the next stall allowed the same, and not have to worry about someone reaching under the divider and waving at him or tapping the side of his foot?
Reply
post #15 of 51
1/16/08 at 2:04pm
I think its the kind of thing that should get an official warning (and possibly a safe sex leaflet?), but its not exactly armed robery.
You can't ignore it though. Imagine being the person in the next stall!
Reply
post #16 of 51
1/16/08 at 2:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GingersMom View Post
And let me pose THIS question: With all the people complaining that no one can agree on anything, why do the threads that folks are posting in agreement with each other get attacked for not posing enough "discussion points?"

I'm not sure how to take that...
If you start a thread about animal abuse on a board that is dedicated to animal welfare, do you really think anybody is going to disagree with you? Okay, I did post possible objections in one thread out of pure contrariness, to illustrate a point, but too many threads are being started to make a political statement, rather than to invite discussion. Does anybody really believe that there are people here who are going to publicly support child or animal abuse? What can you really say about the latest celebrity "news"? Maybe it's just me, but I'm so sick of reading/hearing about the Spears and Hilton families that I wish that "news" wouldn't spill over here.
Reply
post #17 of 51
1/16/08 at 3:59pm
ok normaly i would love to hang some lawyers, But this whole he tapped his foot how sitting on the toliet how he was whistling dixie means he was looking to hook up for gay sex thing. whats next i am going to be driving down the street, looking out my car window, if i move my sun visor the right way the cops are going to bust me?
Reply
post #18 of 51
1/16/08 at 4:06pm
A reasonable expectation of privacy...

I don't have an expectation of walking in on 2 women when I enter a public restroom. Besides, children use public restrooms.
Reply
post #19 of 51
1/16/08 at 4:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
ok normaly i would love to hang some lawyers, But this whole he tapped his foot how sitting on the toliet how he was whistling dixie means he was looking to hook up for gay sex thing. whats next i am going to be driving down the street, looking out my car window, if i move my sun visor the right way the cops are going to bust me?
I thought the same way you did. But then I found out that what they meant was that he used his foot to tap the side of the other man's foot several times. Not tapping as in keeping time with music or anything like that.

Reporters sure could put a bit more effort into clarity from time to time.
Reply
post #20 of 51
1/16/08 at 4:42pm
I saw that article and nearly fell out of my sleep laughing

When you shut the door of a PUBLIC toilet you either POOP or PEE in it. You DO NOT have sex it in.

Sex and fecal-related anything do not go together.
Reply
post #21 of 51
1/16/08 at 4:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Hey, maybe we actually do have a debatable point. The man was not charged with any kind of sexual offence, he was charged with disorderly conduct.
True and here is the Minnesota statute defining disorderly conduct.

I don't care what your sexual preference is, I do not want to walk into a bathroom and hear you . I don't want to hear the sounds you expect to hear in a bathroom, let alone that and I don't need to see you to know what's going on. The ruling that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy while they have sex in a closed stall isn't the first bad decision made by the Supreme Court and it needs to be reexamined. There is such a thing as public decorum. I bet some of the people who think it's ok for people to have sex in the bathroom will complain about the rudeness of the person at the table next to them at the restaurant having a cell phone conversation. Baffles the mind. Personally I will never understand why anybody would want to have sex in such a filthy environment. Any self-respecting person wouldn't even consider it.
Reply
post #22 of 51
1/16/08 at 9:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Hey, maybe we actually do have a debatable point. The man was not charged with any kind of sexual offence, he was charged with disorderly conduct. So how is this action by the ACLU supposed to be of help to him? It may even be harmful, because if he is allowed a reasonable expectation of privacy, isn't the person in the next stall allowed the same, and not have to worry about someone reaching under the divider and waving at him or tapping the side of his foot?
That's not what he was charged with. He was charged with lewd conduct, quite different than disorderly conduct. http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-s...ort_082807.pdf

There are a lot of value judgements about what's okay, what's gross, what's proper, etc going on. The law doesn't care how kinky you are, and whether we think it's unsanitary to have sex in a toilet stall is irrelevant.

And I'm guessing nobody wants to touch the issue I raised of these laws-- and the sting that caught Senator Craig-- being used quite specifically against gay men.
Reply
post #23 of 51
1/16/08 at 9:36pm
Hmm, but he pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct. http://www.ktvb.com/news/localnews/s....7728c485.html

If there were complaints about heterosexual couples having sex in public restrooms I would expect those to be investigated and stopped as well.
Reply
post #24 of 51
1/16/08 at 9:40pm
Yes, it's true. The sex in the bathroom stings are generally aimed at gay men. The busts in the cars at night are generally aimed at teenage heterosexual couples or men being serviced by prostitutes. And if cops would just check the bathrooms at some clubs they could find all sorts of things going on! One of the big differences, though, is that the night-time post-date mating in the backs of cars by teens (I'm sure they still do that, right?) or whatever encounters in club bathrooms (between hetero or homosexual couples) are in places where there is very little chance of families, i.e. children, are going to go into. A public restroom in a park or in an airport are prime places for families with young children or kids (older) on their own would go into.

I'm really not one who shouts "What about the children?? Won't someone please think of the children?!?!" ala Helen Lovejoy. But in this instance, it really isn't the place of strangers in a bathroom to teach kids about sex. It isn't something that people, regardless of age, should be subjected to. And I would feel the exact same way if it were heterosexual sex in public restrooms where totally unsuspecting people would enter (i.e. parks or airports). I don't think there is a reasonable expectation of privacy for sexual acts in that instance.
Reply
post #25 of 51
1/16/08 at 10:08pm
[quote=Skippymjp;2134323. But then I found out that what they meant was that he used his foot to tap the side of the other man's foot several times. .[/QUOTE]


ohh you mean there contact !!! in a bathroom?
that goes aganist man rules of bathroom guild lines,
no touching another guy how in a public bathroom.
Reply
post #26 of 51
1/17/08 at 5:30am
I would hope that I'd have some sort of reasonable expectation of privacy in a bathroom stall. Going into a public restroom with the knowledge I may be filled while using it is very scary to me.

The ACLU is doing a funny thing here. If heterosexual sex is protected in a bathroom, but homosexual sex is considered "lewd" then we have a slight problem with the law. It looks like cities are going to have to go back and decide what is okay to do in public and what isn't.

I'd also like to comment on the NAMBLA case with the ACLU. Be happy they did that. NAMBLA may be one horrible group of people, but if their speech isn't protected what's to say that things you say is? The First Amendment covers everyone, not just people who say nice things about flowers.
Reply
post #27 of 51
1/17/08 at 7:24am
Thread Starter 
I think that anyone who has sex in a public restroom is guilty of lewd behavior.

The members of N.A.M.B.L.A. (North American Man-Boy Lovers Association)
are nothing but pedophiles. Since when are pedophiles protected? No, I am NOT happy that the ACLU defended NAMBLA, but it is typical of them. The ACLU disgusts me totally.
Reply
post #28 of 51
1/17/08 at 8:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I think that anyone who has sex in a public restroom is guilty of lewd behavior.

The members of N.A.M.B.L.A. (North American Man-Boy Lovers Association)
are nothing but pedophiles. Since when are pedophiles protected? No, I am NOT happy that the ACLU defended NAMBLA, but it is typical of them. The ACLU disgusts me totally.
See that's the point! If heterosexual sex is protected by a reasonable expectation of privacy but homosexual isn't then there is a problem! I agree, all sex in a public restroom is lewd, but the law needs to be written that way.

Pedophiles are protected under the First Amendment just like anything you say is. We don't have to LIKE what they say, but they have a right to say it. No matter how creepy, gross, morally wrong, and horrible it may be. It's just like the right the KKK has to assemble in Jena, La this weekend. They've asked all their members to bring nooses. The best thing we can do in these two situations is be the louder voice, or at the very least be the most reasonable one.
Reply
post #29 of 51
1/17/08 at 11:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
But 38 years ago people were having sex on the grass at the Washington Mall and on the front lawns of universities all over the US. Not to mention on rooftops, balconies, picnic tables in national parks......
I missed THAT?
Reply
post #30 of 51
1/17/08 at 12:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I think that anyone who has sex in a public restroom is guilty of lewd behavior.

The members of N.A.M.B.L.A. (North American Man-Boy Lovers Association)
are nothing but pedophiles. Since when are pedophiles protected? No, I am NOT happy that the ACLU defended NAMBLA, but it is typical of them. The ACLU disgusts me totally.
Nambla has nothing to do with this thread aside from the ACLU-bashing bit of it. And, they've defended freedom of speech. You can't pick and choose who gets rights and who doesn't. Sure, those pervs should be rotting in jail, but they aren't, and so they get the same rights as anyone else who is convicted of a crime. To say they shouldn't is fascist.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › ACLU is at it again.