have sex go to prison

Why do we (as a public) still allow governments to intervene in our private and personal affairs that have no impact on them, the country or even society?? The government does NOT belong in our bedrooms!!!
 
Why do we (as a public) still allow governments to intervene in our private and personal affairs that have no impact on them, the country or even society?? The government does NOT belong in our bedrooms!!!

"The ruling grows out of a case in which a Charlevoix man accused of trading Oxycontin pills for the sexual favors of a cocktail waitress was charged under an obscure provision of Michigan's criminal law. The provision decrees that a person is guilty of first-degree criminal sexual conduct whenever "sexual penetration occurs under circumstances involving the commission of any other felony."

not sure it was a privacy in the bedroom issue
 
I used 'the bedroom' figuratively and was referring specifically to this:

Michigan's second-highest court says that anyone involved in an extramarital fling can be prosecuted for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, a felony punishable by up to life in prison.

...

"Technically," he added, "any time a person engages in sexual penetration in an adulterous relationship, he or she is guilty of CSC I," the most serious sexual assault charge in Michigan's criminal code.

That's just demented :cuckoo:
 
Why do we (as a public) still allow governments to intervene in our private and personal affairs that have no impact on them, the country or even society?? The government does NOT belong in our bedrooms!!!

Why do people assume that sex doesnt affect others? I think it's rather short sighted.
 
Why do people assume that sex doesnt affect others? I think it's rather short sighted.

I didn't say that though. The act of sex itself does not impact the government...perhaps the result of sex (unwanted pregnancies or STDs) but I highly doubt that's why these laws were first created and why they are still being practiced.

It's just another way for governments to monitor and punish its citizens and it's usually targetted towards women and homosexuals.
 
Why do we (as a public) still allow governments to intervene in our private and personal affairs that have no impact on them, the country or even society?? The government does NOT belong in our bedrooms!!!

There are state and local laws like - say - making it illegal to feed carrots to a pregnant donkey within a mile of the Capitol building. It looks like one of those weird little obscure things that a lawyer dug up and took advantage of.
 
There are state and local laws like - say - making it illegal to feed carrots to a pregnant donkey within a mile of the Capitol building. It looks like one of those weird little obscure things that a lawyer dug up and took advantage of.

Well the ruling wasn't from a lower court:

Michigan's second-highest court says that anyone involved in an extramarital fling can be prosecuted for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, a felony punishable by up to life in prison.

"We cannot help but question whether the Legislature actually intended the result we reach here today," Judge William Murphy wrote in November for a unanimous Court of Appeals panel, "but we are curtailed by the language of the statute from reaching any other conclusion."
They may have been sending a message though:

The Court of Appeals opinion could also be interpreted as a tweak to the state Supreme Court, which has decreed that judges must enforce statutory language adopted by the Legislature literally, whatever the consequences.

In many other states, judges may reject a literal interpretation of the law if they believe it would lead to an absurd result. But Michigan's Supreme Court majority has held that it is for the Legislature, not the courts, to decide when the absurdity threshold has been breached.

Whitbeck noted that Murphy's opinion questions whether state lawmakers really meant to authorize the prosecution of adulterers for consensual relationships.

"We encourage the Legislature to take a second look at the statutory language if they are troubled by our ruling," he wrote.
 
This is the part that gave me the impression I got:

No one expects prosecutors to declare open season on cheating spouses. The ruling is especially awkward for Attorney General Mike Cox, whose office triggered it by successfully appealing a lower court's decision to drop CSC charges against a Charlevoix defendant. In November 2005, Cox confessed to an adulterous relationship.

Murphy's opinion received little notice when it was handed down. But it has since elicited reactions ranging from disbelief to mischievous giggling in Michigan's gossipy legal community.

The ruling grows out of a case in which a Charlevoix man accused of trading Oxycontin pills for the sexual favors of a cocktail waitress was charged under an obscure provision of Michigan's criminal law. The provision decrees that a person is guilty of first-degree criminal sexual conduct whenever "sexual penetration occurs under circumstances involving the commission of any other felony."

I guess one could see it either way.

They can't outlaw extramarital sex with this.
This woman having sex in exchange for drugs though - that's technically prostitution, right? And by those standards the guy was a john and a dealer, so they were both breaking plenty of laws already.
 
I didn't say that though. The act of sex itself does not impact the government...perhaps the result of sex (unwanted pregnancies or STDs) but I highly doubt that's why these laws were first created and why they are still being practiced.

It's just another way for governments to monitor and punish its citizens and it's usually targetted towards women and homosexuals.

While I agree with you that such laws are not needed, your second paragraph is ridiculous. Plus, if you read the story, it was a man found guilty of this law, participating in heterosexual sex acts.
 
While I agree with you that such laws are not needed, your second paragraph is ridiculous. Plus, if you read the story, it was a man found guilty of this law, participating in heterosexual sex acts.

+1

This is just a tip the the iceberg.

If the Dems win the presidency in 2008, ANY sexual act between a man and a woman (regardless of their marital status) will be a felony.
 
If the Dems win the presidency in 2008, ANY sexual act between a man and a woman (regardless of their marital status) will be a felony.

Anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise. Gay people come across as one of the most sexually liberated groups of people; who do they mainly vote for who? Bill Clinton belonged to which party? Christian conservatives - actually, Christians generally - are prudes when it comes to any type of sex; who do they generally vote for?
 
Christian conservatives - actually, Christians generally - are prudes when it comes to any type of sex; who do they generally vote for?

Christians believe that sex is fine, within the context of marriage. The "prudishness" comes from the leftovers of Victorian influences on Christianity.
 
Christians believe that sex is fine, within the context of marriage. The "prudishness" comes from the leftovers of Victorian influences on Christianity.

I wouldn't call it just "prudishness".

Adultery is a form of breaking your marriage "contract". If a divorce results from adultery, the harmed party has the right to claim more of the goodies in the breakup. Or gets the kids. Therefore adultery must be a "crime" of sorts.
 
I wouldn't call it just "prudishness".

Adultery is a form of breaking your marriage "contract". If a divorce results from adultery, the harmed party has the right to claim more of the goodies in the breakup. Or gets the kids. Therefore adultery must be a "crime" of sorts.

Pretty much in the same line of thinking that Screaming Eagle is.

Adultery is bad for the sanctity of marriage, and SHOULD be found "wanting" in a society that promotes marriage.

Adultery shows lack of commitment on one of the partners , or maybe BOTH, and should be sanctioned.

The ACT of sex is NOT the purvey of government, but what SEX begets certainly can be.:eusa_think:
 
Pretty much in the same line of thinking that Screaming Eagle is.

Adultery is bad for the sanctity of marriage, and SHOULD be found "wanting" in a society that promotes marriage.

Adultery shows lack of commitment on one of the partners , or maybe BOTH, and should be sanctioned.

The ACT of sex is NOT the purvey of government, but what SEX begets certainly can be.:eusa_think:

Right, if there weren't any sanctions against adultery then all marriages would de facto become "open" marriages.

Taking it a step further, if adultery is considered to be OK by society, would there be any real reason for marriage in the first place?
 

Forum List

Back
Top