[Maelstorm]

One more reason for a constitutional amendment defining obscenity as any sexual expression or behavior that falls outside a heterosexual monogamous relationship. I think what should be pushed is a state by state effort to ban homosexual/sexual indoctrination in schools.

[Marauder]

One more reason for a constitutional amendment defining obscenity as any sexual expression or behavior that falls outside a heterosexual monogamous relationship.

Lots of luck getting something like that through this congress. It might be easier getting a congressional pay cut through than something that made that much sense.

An amendment like that might've passed muster in the 50s, but of course we weren't facing this problem then. Those of the "Greatest Generation" were still in charge back then.

[Melas]

Never happen. You do realize that such an amendment would place much of Shakespeare, Nabakov, Wolfe, Metalious, Miller, Hemmingway and more greats than I can name firmly in the obscene category? No thanks. Pedal facism elsewhere.

[weegee]

It should be called “corrupting a minor” by encouraging sexual experimentation with an aberrant sexual desire.

The Lawrence v. Texas case wasn't about consenting adults in private. It was about norming homosexuality for everyone (minors including) and pushing it down the throats of everyone, not leaving it "in the bedroom". It is taught in public institutions.

[Eric Blair 2084]

<

Phote from a recent Md Public School Band performance:

[Mr. Blonde]

One more reason for a constitutional amendment defining obscenity as any sexual expression or behavior that falls outside a heterosexual monogamous relationship.

Yeah why not. Freedom of Speech is overrated anyway. [/sarcasm]

[ivyleaguebrat]

"a constitutional amendment defining obscenity as any sexual expression or behavior that falls outside a heterosexual monogamous relationship."

Do you think it would pass?