Virginia - fornication now legal

[Pah]

Article in the Richmond Times Dispatch


The Virginia Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional today the state law that makes it illegal for nonmarried people to have sex. The court said there is "no relevant distinction" between the Virginia statute outlawing fornication and the Texas sodomy law the U.S. Supreme Court struck down in 2003. The issue came to the Virginia court in the context of a civil lawsuit. A woman sought damages from a man from whom she had contracted herpes during the two-year sexual relationship. Richmond Circuit Judge T.J. Markow, relying on a 1990 Virginia Supreme Court opinion, ruled that she could not maintain the lawsuit because she had contracted the disease while participating in the illegal act of fornication. Writing for the Virginia Supreme Court, Justice Elizabeth B. Lacy said, "The [U.S.] Supreme Court in Lawrence indicated that such policies are insufficient to sustain the statute's constitutionality." Lacy emphasized that today's decision applies only "to private consensual sexual intercourse. Our holding does not affect the commonwealth's police powers regarding regulation of public fornication, prostitution or other such crimes," Lacy said.

//

 

[Sunstone]

There goes civilization as we know it. Now people in Virginia will start having sex outside of marriage. Just watch and see it happen, if you don't believe me.


A bit more seriously, I think this ruling goes to show that what promotes the liberities of one group (homosexuals) can be used to promote the liberties of another group (heterosexuals).

 

[retrorich]

Fornication. I love that word! It sounds...like...so...oh my God...really, really, really...BAD!

:biglaugh:

 

[Pah]

But they have a good point, why should one group of Americans citizens have more rights to liberties then another group of Americans? ...

Advocates for homosexual rights have been saying that all along the way. But perhaps, I'm not clear about your intended meaning.

Bob

 

[fromthe heart]

With their motto being "Virginia is for Lovers" they HAD to change it.

 

[Sunstone]

Just a thought: "Virginia is for fornicators" doesn't quite have the same pleasant ring as "Virginia is for lovers", does it?

 

[fromthe heart]

Just a thought: "Virginia is for fornicators" doesn't quite have the same ring as "Virginia is for lovers?, does it?

:biglaugh: Not quite

 

[retrorich]

"religion: Atheist"

Your God? :tsk:

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can use common kindergarden words that are normally beeped to protect the innocent minds of adults.

"Oh my God" is an expression frequently used without religious implications. If you don't believe that, try listening to a few teenage girls conversing.

And, yes, we atheists use that expression also.

 

[retrorich]

I know that "we"...
Famous quote that comes to mind is: "Thank God, I am an Atheist."
Kind of a backdoor "confirmation" of a deny'er for what <s>he deny's, not?

"Kind of a backdoor "confirmation" of a deny'er for what <s>he deny's, not?

Excuse me, is that in English?

 

[retrorich]

Whatever. It sounds like double-talk to me.

Let me take a wild guess at what you might be trying to say:

Sounds like a "back-door" attempt by a denier to affirm that which he/she claims to deny.

Is that close?

PEACE

 

[retrorich]

Please reread my last reply, which I have embellished.

 

[Pah]

..., since it has no meaning to you, and what is the purpose of using words that have no meaning?!?

It's a curse or used as an exclamation. The meaning to be conveyed and infered has little to do with the original meaning.

Bob

 

[retrorich]

and what is the purpose of using words that have no meaning?!?)/QUOTE]

I used the expression "Oh my God" in imitation of typical teenage girl conversation to add a touch of humor to my original post. Apparently my attempt failed.

 

[retrorich]

It's a curse or used as an exclamation. The meaning to be conveyed and infered has little to do with the original meaning.

Bob

Thanks for your further explanation, Pah!

 

[retrorich]

Maybe this is better:

Sounds like a denial that results in an unintentional affirmation of that which the denier is attempting to deny.

 

[RangerTwigz]

Maybe this is better:

Sounds like a denial that results in an unintentional affirmation of that which the denier is attempting to deny.

Now that explanation makes sense! Not that I'm implying that the others didnt

 

[Pah]

Lets from now on disconnect the Atheist from Retrorich and make it a virtual Atheist as by the definition.

So we have:
"Oh my God..." as spoken by an Atheist.

Why a curse if a claimed atheist doesn't believe in what he curses?
If I curse, I do not wish for your believe to be true, I wish for the one under the curse to suffer the worst possible.
As I stated.. An atheist doesn't believe in god, but in this case above, the door is still open.

Consider "Oh your God" spoken by the same Atheist. That door is definitely closed.

Truth.

I disagree that "Oh, my God" is a curse. I consider the phrase to be an exclamation where, usually, no harm is intended.

But can we now return to the topic?

Bob

 

[jewscout]

But i enjoyed breaking the law

 

[retrorich]

I hereby nominate TranceAm for the Yogi Berra Award for garbled English and convoluted logic. :biglaugh:

 

[retrorich]

TranceAm:

The ironic thing is the original topic had nothing to do with atheism or god, until you made it a part by attacking my use of a common express which really has no religious implications. Why are you so concerned about my atheism? I notice you decline to state your religion in your profile. Are you ashamed of it?