Adult .IE Domain Names Banned As Immoral 509
An anonymous reader writes, "The Irish domain prefix, .ie, is controlled by an organization called the IE Domain Registry. In their terms and conditions they state, 'The proposed domain name must not be offensive or contrary to public policy or generally accepted principles of morality.' But this policy is only applied to sex words as this adult webmaster has discovered. Murder.ie is acceptable, Porn.ie is not. Can a word be immoral? And in this day and age, should a government-chosen domain registry be allowed to enforce their own moral code on the public?"
juden-raus.ie (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFS:
porn.ie is a poor example, since pornography has been a strict superset of free speech since the 1960's; how about: juden-raus.ie?juden-raus.ie, I suspect, would convert many here into willing censors.
Re:juden-raus.ie (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's military-and-intelligence-professionals.us [cnn.com] . Please use plus-good newspeak.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just to set the record straight, I'm Arab and Muslim. When I said "here", I was referencing to /. not Ireland. That remark, sadly seem to make consensus.
If you don't see the west's double standards in treating Jews and Arabs let me refresh you memory; People get sent to jail for challenging the accuracy of the Holocaust figures, yet freedom of speech in invoked everytime someone gratuitousely insults the prophet Mohammed and his teachin
Re:juden-raus.ie (Score:4, Insightful)
I see a double standard, but let me rebutt yours before I argue mine.
People get sent to jail for challenging the accuracy of the Holocaust figures, yet freedom of speech in invoked everytime someone gratuitousely insults the prophet Mohammed and his teachings.
No one ever gets sent to jail in the west for insulting the Jews or their teachings. Insulting the prophet Mohammed (isn't there supposed to be an addition there?) is the equivalent of saying that Kabbalah is devil-worship; it's freedom of religion.
Those counties (of which the United States is NOT a part) that made denying the Holocaust a crime did so because they were complicit in the holocaust. It'd be as if the United States made questioning the reality of southern slavery a crime. You're comparing apples and, well, pears.
Israel gets away with a stockpile of nukes but no Arab country could dream of being allowed to develop them.
No arab country has millions of Jews planning on burning it from existance. And while Israel implies that they have nuclear weapons, they do not openly admit to having them, and they have never performed a nuclear test. It's entirely possible that they don't have a single nuke of their own, and are just mis-stating the presense of nukes installed by their allies.
As for how the Jews get special treatment -- you're right. They, as a part of their religion, believe that they're special, and as part of their politics, hold that they have a modern-day right to do so. Because they've done such a good job adapting to the west, the jewish idea of what is offensive and abhorrent is treated as an agnostic view, and so carries a fair bit of weight. This is, in essense, subversive, but it's not the sort of thing that my country is going to get riled up over. After all, Christians and Muslims have exactly the same access to influencing our country; they just need to play their cards right.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're comparing apples to oranges here.
Freedom of speech would also apply to people insulting Abrahm, Jesus or any other prophet and their respective teachings.
I think that's a matter of culture. Israel is more o
Re:juden-raus.ie (Score:4, Interesting)
Ironically, your post illustrates my point; There's no way to have an intelligent debate when one of the parties dares to say that Jews don't have a monopoly over suffering. Emotions quickly take over and the word "anti-semite" is used as a wildcard. Wrong! I grew up in a country with a firmly rooted Jewish community. Early on, I learned to judge people based on what they do, not who they are. This wasn't the case for many of the bullies which agressed Jews for religious reasons. I was beaten up many times because I tried to defend the Jews. So, you agree that the west isn't accepting mainstream Arab culture? Ok, that was too easy.
The west is backing those same countries making any change of regime very hard. I can only back that claim with my own experience.
I don't blame the Jews for anything. Heck, I know most people in Israel are against the massacre the IDF is perpetrating.
I'm not gullible enough to believe in an organised racist conspiracy. Yet, I recognize a genocide when I see one; And the Israeli government is responsible for it. Granted, the Arab leaders are jerks and should have acknowledged Israel's right to exist early on but there are not actively responsible for the victims. Indeed you can. But you'd be wrong again. I live in Sweden ('cause of all the blondes and pirates). It was originally quoted in a book by Walter Isaacson, "Kissinger - A Biography", on page 561.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And we would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you meddling Slashdotters.
Re: (Score:2)
Or am I oversimplifying?
Pot, Meet kettle: (Score:2)
And in order to put a few knots in the rubber band, let me just state that the answer, unequivocally, is no to both formulations.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree. You probably accept that the airwaves "belong to the public", and you probably accept that we need to regulate them technically to keep them usable. So regulation in some form is okay, right? Here's the part where we disagree... if the airwaves belong to the public, then the public should be able to determine their use. While our democratic process might be flawed, it remains our best option for determining how to use public property. In my mind, banning nudity during daytime TV is no better or
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree, friend. Anybody with a receiver in range can pick up broadcasts, but with cable and "most" (not all) satellite services, you have to have a subscription. You're correct that satellite does use spectrum, though. I suppose it's tomato, tomahto.
I look at XM Radio (I have no experience with Sirius) as an example of where I believe the FCC should stay out o
Re:juden-raus.ie (Score:5, Informative)
juden-raus == Jews Out! From the Nazi era, and also a board game - of equal value.
Re:juden-raus.ie (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, that'll be "bitte". Schnell is the German word for quickly
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
If you get something wrong and somebody calls you on it, you can just label it a joke that went over their head. That's a handy catch-all, isn't it?
Next time I fuck up a story in the pub and someone points out my flaw, I'm gonna get a beermat and scrawl some unfunny doodle with someone's head and an airplane and everyone will think I'm so cool!
Thanks!
Yes? So.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't this standard procedure for most country TLDs? I just checked for my country:
From their webpage: [www.dns.lu]
Translation: The proposed domain name must not be offensive or contrary to public policy or generally accepted principles of morality
Thus, identical to the Ireland registry provisions. The real question here is, why someone would consider "murder" falling into that provision? I clearly don't. You see, this could be a website about prevening murder, or a forum for people seeking help that had a relative murdered. I don't know.
Also keep in mind that pretty much all "normal" sex-related words should be registrable just because of *that* reason. tits.com used to be about birds (the real, flying kind). Now, I do not know what the porn guy exactly tried to register (just checked the article: it was porn.ie). It would be hard to defend "bondagegirls.ie", but a case for "sex.ie" might be acceptable, if the content clearly is non-sexual. (Well, the applicant was a p0rn peddler, so good luck to that)
Oh, and I see he owns sex.ie... Now really, it's not as if sex.ie is registrable, so should be murder.ie.... He is complaining about nothing *at all*.
What I think that happens: the registration process is completely automated and the words just pass through an automated filter which, incidentially, just contains sex-related words. He should try "t1ts.ie" ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this standard procedure for most country TLDs?
same thing in Romania. swearwords, etc. are a no-no. for example pula.ro (slang for penis, dick, schlong...) is still free after all these years. and i bet it gets rejected every week.
ftrules: [rotld.ro]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Translated:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why?
I mean, it isn't everyone's cup of tea, but clearly some people are turned on by this kind of thing, and so long as it's just a theatre of willing participants what's the problem?
If it isn't just a theatre of willing participants, then there are crimes being commited that need to be addressed by far stronger means than censoring website names, and anyone who is going to suggest that any resources be spent on censoring website names while such crimes are being
Stronger sense of morality there (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stronger sense of morality there (Score:5, Informative)
I believe it makes them wrong but then I live here. Things have improved of late. I've noticed around the college I'm studying at now that safe sex is promoted heavily - even more than last year. I think there's been a realisation that promoting safe sex isn't promoting casual sex. I know when I'm looking at that chlamidya poster in the toilets I don't care if I never get laid again (althought that soon passes)
As for the
In summary, is Ireland a conservative, moralistic hellhole? Yes, but it's getting better. We no longer export pregnant teens and force them to surrender their children for adoption!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
My dear man what are you talking about?! I'm from Ireland and you have not been here in a while if that's what ya think!
Also compared to the US (I'm guessing your american - forgive me if your not) I think calling Ireland conservative is comical! FOX NEWS anyone?!
Ireland has come out of a more conservative age and in the past 15 years has improved leaps and bounds regarding this kind of thing. E
killing good, orgasms evil? (Score:2, Insightful)
That is disgusting. If true, I feel that IE Domain Registry is revealing their own sickness by enforcing such as bizarre standard.
So wait... Murder.ie is legal... (Score:2)
Ireland has got a history of that sort aof thing (Score:4, Informative)
Sit Down Young Lad (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah it's all true. Playboy was Illegal, along with condoms and being homosexual until 1993. Yes 1993. Prior to thise, people were still selling playboys, condonms and being homosexual, but it was in fact illegal. We don't actually have an explicit right to freedom of speech in this country. In the Irish constitution, most if not all personal rights are, to use the exact phrase, "subject to public order and morality". Oy'veh!
Anyway, it's not like that over here anymore. Long story short, people got relatively wealthy and now have the money to be as debauched and decandent as they like, hence the laws got changed. The current Taoiseach of the country, that's the Prime Minister, is divorced and living with his girlfriend. Or he was at any rate, while still Taoiseach. He might have married her. Might. So no we are not currently talking about a conservative catholic theocracy anymore. Because it was a conservative catholic theocracy at one point. I've got witnesses who can testify to that.
However! There's still a lot of old guard catholic dead wood hanging around. The kind who thought that Vatican II was an opening of the floodgates of sin. They're here and there, usually in minor offical positions that they obtained through their connections to government. "Pillars of the Community" had a lot of government connections over here, mostly because everyone else had emigrated.
Anyway, these kind of officals tend not only to be catholics, they are very often members of some subversive catholic organisation like Opus Dei or the Knights of Columbanus. I believe the attoreny general in the infamous X case [wikipedia.org] was a member of the latter. Think Pat Robertson, only without the TV show. Trust me, these guys are the real pros, Robertson's just a wannabe.
Anyway, it's highly likely that someone of that ilk is running the
Public policy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Totalitarianism is orthogonal to all of the things you listed as examples
I wonder... (Score:2, Funny)
murder.ie? (Score:5, Funny)
You miss the point ... (Score:2, Interesting)
The truth of the matter is that if enough people didn't like it, they wouldn't sell enough domains to stay profitable, and they would be forced to change.
I'm sur
Re:You miss the point ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The countries domain is a service provided for the country; privatized or not, it's supposed to be run in the interests of the people. If enough people of Ireland feel that their countries service isn't what they want then they have every right to demand that the government improve that service, again, privatized or not. They shouldn't have to use another countries domain name when their own government is supposed to be providing their citizens with a service that the majority of them like.
Would you argue the same about other privatized services? Water? Transport? "If you don't like it, use someone else?" In a lot of countries there is no viable competitor, and in this case, if Irish people want an Irish domain (surprise!) then they have no other service to go to.
Maybe the majority of them want the restrictions, and that's their choice. But you don't get to shut down the argument over whether or not this is a good choice by simply spouting some inanity about the market deciding blah blah blah. If the citizens want their own countries domain rules to change, they should.
No, YOU miss the point ... (Score:2)
The truth of the matter is that if enough people didn't like it, they wouldn't sell enough domains to stay profitable, and they would be forced to change.
If I was a part of an ethnic, moral, sexual or religious minority and the majority of people (including the government in a democratic country) thought like you do, I would be in serious trouble. Who gives a fuck about the minorities as long as the majority votes for us?!
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps I'm going a bit far with this, but anytime a monopoly abuses its position in ways that are illegal or immoral, someone on Slashdot claims it's fine because they've earned it or are otherwise allowed to do whatever they want to make money.
That's it! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.mozilla.org/support/firefox/faq#spell-
Re: (Score:2)
similar to greek dns authority (Score:2)
For example there was a website called bourdela.gr (bourdela is 'whorehouses' in greek) that had a directory of all whorehouses in Greece. They operated for a few months and then EETT decided it should not approve this domain and the website had to go to a com domain.
This is on
Re: (Score:2)
With the case of the bourdela domain that you cited, is that not its purpose?
Months later is a bit of stretch though. Unless you wrote down a few addresses in your little black book or something.
.US Bans Names Too, such as FuckCensorship.US (Score:4, Informative)
For the timebeing, along with others, it's in perpetual limbo:
http://www.whois.us/whois.cgi?TLD=us&dn=fuckcenso
Ron
This is Ireland (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway the irish solution to divorce was for the husband to move over to England for a while and divorce his wife from there and the divorce is recognised in Ireland. Similarly an Irish woman while being prevented from seeking an abortion i
that top-level domain belongs to that goverment (Score:3, Insightful)
yes.
your right to free speech does not:
1. extend to other countries
2. usually does not extend to material unsuitable for minors, depending on the situation and audience.
(like creepy domainnames for porn site)
3. does not extend to other things, like slander, libel, false advertising, misrepresentation, etc.
mostly your right to free speech is there to criticize the government(your own government), it's not there so you can download child porn.
If you want to get upset, having a nazi.xx domain is illegal in most European countries. but as far as I know it is legal in the US. WHOIS for: nazi.com [dnsstuff.com], nazi.org [dnsstuff.com]
I personally find domains like IHR.ORG and VHO.ORG far more offensive, they belong to Holocaust denial groups. Relastically we should ban those domains before we ban BIGJUICYSLUTS.COM (is that a real domain? I bet it is)
Re: (Score:2)
Domain prefix?!? (Score:2, Funny)
No wonder I've never come across an Irish website! I'll have to use -A flag in the future.
Dibs on hairp.ie! (Score:3, Funny)
Bang goes my Irish convenience store chain. (Score:3, Funny)
Obligatory George Carlin (Score:2)
We have thoughts, but thoughts are fluid. You know, [humming]. And, then we assign a word to a thought, [clicks tongue]. And we're stuck with that word for that thought. So be careful with words. I like to think, yeah, the same words that hurt can heal. It's a matter of how you pick them
.ie domain registry is was very restrictive before (Score:2, Informative)
The government is inept for these kinds of things. (Score:2)
The government is in charge of the "official"
However, no one's forcing you to use the Irish state's
I just don't get it (Score:2)
How can it be that after a 2000 year history of anything from book burning, illegitimacy, sexual escapades, and torture to mass murder and genocide in the Catholic church, people can still fall for the belief that repression and suppression are means of improving morality?
See this for what it is: an attempt to get control over people by keeping them in fear of knowledge and basic biologica
Can be immoral, but... (Score:2)
Yes, depending on who you ask, words can be immoral, but I don't think a domain registry should act on it.
"...thinking it's a children's bookshop" (Score:2)
Stroller.
Can a word be immoral? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's pretty much like asking "Is God fair?". I only hope you don't expect an objective answer, because morals are just as subjective as religious beliefs (and please don't hit me back with a Wikipedia link to an article about moral absolutism or moral objectivism).
Re:Murder or Porn (Score:5, Insightful)
You're still implying there's something wrong with pornographic actions, and that it's the role of the government to regulate them.
I'd suggest that whatever sexual activity takes place between consenting adults (or solo, given that this is Slashdot) is their own business.
Re:Murder or Porn (Score:4, Funny)
(or solo, given that this is Slashdot)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Posting sexual pictures of yourself on a site called www.porn.ie, for example, is making a decision to participate in a sexual activity (exhibitionism).
Going to a site called www.porn.ie is a decision to participate in a sexual activity (voyeurism).
If people choose to do either, they are consenting to make the sexual activity their own business.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As for swinger mags, I think if people who aren't interested are confronted with them during their daily business, it's a problem. He
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right, and that's really the only argument I see as being valid here. I'd say though, virtually every human activity can and will be misused. That's a good reason for effective laws and law enforcement, not a good excuse for censorship and repression.
It's the slavery (both physical and economic
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If women were told that they couldn't work any job, but porn, then you'd have a better argument.
The next time you see a guy breaking his back working shit labor, ask yourself if he's sure he wants to be there. This is, essentially, the trafficking of human beings.
Watch everything you buy. You don't know where it came from.
We should make buying shoes illegal; I hear that the people who are forced to make them don't have any alternatives. It's essentiall
Wait, what? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hope that after some healthy reflection you're now wishing for an edit function on /.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, well, murderous actions are generally against the law and harmful to one or more persons. 'Pornographic actions' generally aren't.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The USA was taken by force from the red indians. If the UK gives NI back to the Irish, then surely we should give the USA back to the red indians, Australia back to the Aborigines, New Zealand back to the Kiwis etc.etc.etc.
And your weak link is, there are fuck all English people living in the north. There are unionists (mostly scots descent protestants), and republicans. Currently the unionists outnumber the republicans by a small minority, but the balance is shifting over time. I'd say within another 4
Re:Religious fundamentalists (Score:4, Insightful)
No, we just thought they were restricted to America [guardian.co.uk].
Boom-cha! Thank-you, I'll be here all night.
Re:Religious fundamentalists (Score:5, Insightful)
No, we just thought they were restricted to America.
.IE decision cropping up from time to time. Give it another thirty years and you won't be able to tell an urbanite from Dublin or Galway from someone from New York or London, apart from the accents. Not saying its a good thing or a bad thing, but its how I see it going.
Actually even in Ireland, the situation is changing extremely rapidly. What the GP was referring to was the "troubles" in the north, which had almost nothing to do with religion - Catholic / Protestant was just a convenient title for the opposing camps. Republican / unionist would be better. All that is besides the point, however.
The gap between younger and older generations in Ireland is staggering. We basically went from ultra conservative, churchgoing folks to hedonisitic, hip, and tech-savvy in about thirty years. The older generation is still in political power however, which is why you see things like this
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is something that is often forgotten, that it's not quite a 1:1 mapping between religion and nation/union-ism. I once knew someone from NI who was of Catholic origin but didn't want the North to be a part of the South because of the south's social conservatism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's more like the other way round and long before Ireland was invaded. Christianity made it's way to Ireland on it's own, and for some strange reason really found a home there. Then when Christianity started to wane a bit in Europe, it was bolstered up by Irish missionaries. For example, look at a list of saints related to Scotland (such as at http://www.visitdunkeld.com/scottish-saints.htm [visitdunkeld.com]) and you'll see that a lot of t
Re: (Score:2)
Christianity made it's way to Ireland on it's own, and for some strange reason really found a home there.
:D
Err, when you look at what we had to deal with [bifrost.it] at the time, it makes a bit more sense...
Re:A rose by any other name... (Score:5, Interesting)
Except for, you know, the idea that we should be free to do whatever the hell we want, so long as we're not harming others. I know freedom (and liberalism) in general is out of favour these days, but still...
don't force those who adminsiter and check these to suffer your personal tastes, and don't cry foul by their decisions. That is what pisses me off.
So we should all suffer YOUR personal tastes? Or should we go with "majority rules" here, and fuck anyone who disagrees with the majority?
Meet Bob, he had the same rights as everyone. One day he fucked a watermelon, and loved it. Now he felt that he didn't have the same rights as everyone else and started a campaign for 'equal rights' and 'tolerance'
And so long as Bob isn't harming a soul while fucking watermelons, what precisely is the problem? If he's prevented by law from doing that, he damned well SHOULD campaign for equal rights and tolerance.
I think your poorly-veiled allusion to gay rights, plus your use of quotation marks around 'equal rights' and 'tolerance' speaks volumes about your position, though. You do realize that without 'equal rights', it's just as easy for someone to find something about you that is slightly different than the majority, and get after you about it?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're still free, as an Irish citizen, to register donkey-fuckers.com, donkey-fuckers.co.uk, etc. You just can't register donkey-fuckers.ie. So what? What about the freedom of the registrar to decide what data they will and will not allow to reside on their servers?
I really don't see how any rights are
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This has very little to do with freedom to be honest. It's their tld, they've setup the rules. Don't agree with them, buy a .com name.
No, you should suffer the Terms Of Service of the registrar, like the ones many tld's enforce. Don't like it? Write to
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, I think that the one who is the kooky one is the one who thinks that disagreeing with censorship is equivalent to being a fundamentalist. That's just my opinion though...
Here's a decent definition of censorship: The practice of suppressing a text or part of a text that is considered objectionable according to certain standards.
This is censorsh
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Censorship isn't censorship when it's "self governing"? What? And how is this self-governing? It's being enforced by a private company, not by the people.
"Of course the rule can't be wrong, simply because it isn't quite as strict as a the rules in an arbitrarily chosen survival camp!" A truly masterful point. Arg, how did you come up with this?
Oh, and there's nothing wrong with keeping society prim, proper, polite and personable. So if you want to drop the "f word" in a post, then feel free, but don't c
Re: (Score:2)
If that's true, I've guessed we've made much less progress than I thought.
You don't like it? Go live in fundamentalist/survivalist camp and then decide who is the kooky one.
Since when has this been any fucking kind of an argument? You see it all the time in discussions about the United States, where any criticism regarding loss of rights or liberties brings out the knee-jerk response, 'Well you go to North Korea and see what rights you have there!!!!!' Bub, we'r
Re: (Score:2)
This is censorship, the .ie registry is a monopoly put in place by a democratically elected government.
The Irish government does presently not outlaw pornography so where the hell do these civil servants think they do have this authority in their own little(?) corner of Irish society??
There is nothing wrong with keeping society prim
Re: (Score:2)
1. It is censorship. Third parties can practice censorship as much as the government.
2. Aren't domain registrars everywhere controlled by their governments? The effect being that this *is* government censorship.
3. The majority would agree? Is that wishful thinking or agumentum ad populum?
4. You assume that by allowing pornie.ie society would not be prim, proper, polite and personable. What you state is merely your opinion passed off as fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, fuck you buddy. Ireland was a fundamentalist survival camp for quite a while there. We only recently broke out and I'll be danmed if I going back to the will of the so called majority. Let me put it this way, most of the "majority" who supported censorship, seem now to have shut up about it. The censorship was the brainchild of a busybody catholic elite. The re
Mod parent down. (Score:4, Funny)
Don't like personal freedom, cocksucker? Go to China. Stop fucking up the civilized world.
You heard me. GET OUT.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
'Victory'?
Re: (Score:2)
What a coincidence. Sex is also the New Zealand word for six.
Re: (Score:2)
Ireland has one of the highest literacy rates and educational standards in the world. University education is free (actually you get paid to go- everyone gets a grant of about $6,000 a year) we have one of the highest University attendance rates per member of population in the world.
We also have one of the highest rates of economic growth on the planet, and have a democratically elected govornment (unlike the good ol' U.S of A, who even managed to elect a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. You can easily derive the big moral no-nos (such as murder, theft, etc) from first principles, For example, most people don't want to be murdered, so murder is morally wrong - you don't need some being or beings in the sky to tell you not to murder. Morals such as "You shall not wear a mixed stuff, wool and linen together." (Dueteronomy 22:11) would probably be harder to justify.
Re:Porn isn't free speech. (Score:4, Insightful)
I would argue that effective birth control has a lot more to do with this than "television". You're a LOT less likely to "take a chance" with that good looking guy you met if there's a high probability you'll end up with a baby out of a night's passion. Oh and why is it that girls sleeping around is no good, but guys sleeping around doesn't get a mention?
Women were culturally restricted to be a subservient class in a male dominated world. All this has changed, and now women fend for themselves, work for themselves, and educate themselves. Basically the sexual differences between male and female have been blurred now. There's no reason why they shouldn't entertain themselves sexually as well. What's good for the goose is also good for the gander.
While I agree that extremes in any situation including sex may lead to disappointing results, I feel that education, not imposition from the outside with stupid (and unenforceable) laws, is the solution. Outlawing something only makes it illegal. It does NOT stop people from doing it.
Morals are individual things. Respect for your fellow human being means you can't impose your point of view on them.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You misunderstand. It's not sex that's immoral. It's sex between Democrats that's immoral. Personally, I even condone Republican-Democrat sex (if they're married of course), but Democrat-Democrat sex... ewwwwww.