4
   

Gay marriage debate centers on history vs. change

 
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 May, 2006 02:46 am
Wolf O'Donnell- I hope you realize that I am trying to follow the stellar advice given by Debra LAW with regard to the Fourteenth Amendment and the provision of Equal Rights under the law.

I think it is cruel, American and positively Medieval to refuse Equal Rights to those who would practice Bestiality, Incest, Polygamy, Polyandry, and Pederasty.

It is a sure sign of the vicious hold the right wing and the fundamentalists have on our populace and, more specifically, those groups listed above.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 May, 2006 07:00 am
Just remembered I posted here and I'd like to post just to say...

BernardR wrote:
Wolf O'Donnell- I hope you realize that I am trying to follow the stellar advice given by Debra LAW with regard to the Fourteenth Amendment and the provision of Equal Rights under the law.


No, you aren't. You're taking her advice to the extreme. By your logic, we must give equal rights to animals and plants of any sort.

Quote:
I think it is cruel, American and positively Medieval to refuse Equal Rights to those who would practice Bestiality, Incest, Polygamy, Polyandry, and Pederasty.


Your reverse psychology argument is completely pitiful and transparent. Bestiality is not equivalent to homosexuality. Bestiality is equivalent to rape, because the animal does not consent to anything. The same goes for pederasty. Polygamy and polyandry are illegal because they somehow cheat the tax system concerning marriage. Incest is not comparable because it puts any offspring created at a health risk incomparable to homosexuality.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 May, 2006 08:10 am
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
No, you aren't. You're taking her advice to the extreme. By your logic, we must give equal rights to animals and plants of any sort.

No we needn't, because the 14th Amendment refers to persons, which animals and plants are not.

Wolf ODonnel wrote:
Bestiality is equivalent to rape, because the animal does not consent to anything. The same goes for pederasty.

This is true for pederastery, but not for animals -- because animals are not persons, they don't enjoy equal protection of the law, and their lives, liberty and property can be taken without due process of the law. In fact, they have no constitutional rights to be taken. Hence, under the constitution, sex with your own animal seems more akin to sleeping with an inflatable doll, which I believe is protected by the 4th amendment as incorporated through the 14th. (America probably has statutes protecting animals, however.)

Wolf ODonnel wrote:
Polygamy and polyandry are illegal because they somehow cheat the tax system concerning marriage. Incest is not comparable because it puts any offspring created at a health risk incomparable to homosexuality.

(1) Why is that an argument against polygamy and polyandry? Why isn't it an argument that the tax system concerning marriage is unconstitutional? (2) Can you quantify the health risks of offspring form incestuous marriages? How do you argue that it's great enough to curtail the right of consenting grownups to marry whomever they want?
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 May, 2006 08:38 am
Thomas wrote:
This is true for pederastery, but not for animals -- because animals are not persons, they don't enjoy equal protection of the law, and their lives, liberty and property can be taken without due process of the law.


Still doesn't change the fact that it's nonconsensual.

And I can't seem to find any evidence for the latter questions you ask.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 May, 2006 09:04 am
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
Thomas wrote:
This is true for pederastery, but not for animals -- because animals are not persons, they don't enjoy equal protection of the law, and their lives, liberty and property can be taken without due process of the law.


Still doesn't change the fact that it's nonconsensual.

So is intercourse with inflateable plastic dolls, which I'm sure the 4th and 14th amendments protect. Your point still doesn't change the fact that animals have no constitutional rights that humans must respect. (They may have statutory rights that humans must respect, and that inflateable dolls don't have. But I am completely ignorant of this part of American law, so I won't say anything about it.)

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
And I can't seem to find any evidence for the latter questions you ask.

For what it's worth, my source on incest is one of the few scholarly and non-sensational books I could find. (Arthur P. Wolf, William H Durham: Inbreeding, Incest, And The Incest Taboo: The State Of Knowledge At The Turn Of The Century. Stanford University Press (2004)). The authors find that inbreeding was a health hazard in societies like Ancient Egypt, which often compelled incest by law. It also causes problems in isolated, small populations, where people can't help but to inbreed. But no health problems have been demonstrated for incest that occasionally happens in societies where it's unusual.

That's why I agree with the point justice Scalia made in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas: Gay marriage should be treated analogously to incest, polygamy, and polyandry. Which, in turn, leads me to the conclusions that (1) the constitution does not compel states to recognize gay marriage; (2) it would be good policy to get the state out of the marriage business altogether, a point joefromchicago created this thread to discuss; and (3) it would also be good policy, though not quite as good as #2, if the state recognized gay marriages, incestuous marriage, and polygamy/polyandry.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 May, 2006 10:01 am
Actually, a recent news report made me think it would be better for the state to recognise families where the main couple is not married due to the rise in couples bearing children outside of wedlock.

I find it strange that in our country (the UK) gay civil unions are recognised, yet non-married couples that live together and have children, do not get the same benefits as married couples. Sure, one step at a time, but come on! We need to get these people recognised too!
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 May, 2006 10:31 am
Thomas wrote:
So is intercourse with inflateable plastic dolls, which I'm sure the 4th and 14th amendments protect.

I'm not sure how the 4th amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures would protect intercourse with inflatable dolls, although it would certainly protect against the seizure of that doll by the state. Instead, sex with inanimate objects would most likely be protected under the general liberty interest of the 14th amendment.

Thomas wrote:
That's why I agree with the point justice Scalia made in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas: Gay marriage should be treated analogously to incest, polygamy, and polyandry. Which, in turn, leads me to the conclusions that (1) the constitution does not compel states to recognize gay marriage; (2) it would be good policy to get the state out of the marriage business altogether, a point joefromchicago created this thread to discuss; and (3) it would also be good policy, though not quite as good as #2, if the state recognized gay marriages, incestuous marriage, and polygamy/polyandry.

Even if the state were to treat marriage as just one type of contract, rather than as a privileged institution, there might be compelling reasons to regulate incestuous unions. The state, after all, protects various classes of persons (e.g. minors, persons with diminished mental capacities, etc.) in their contractual relationships. The state determines that those classes of persons, because of their inherently unequal bargaining power and the increased risk of abuse, require the special solicitude of the laws. The same could be said of people in certain types of incestuous unions.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 May, 2006 10:53 am
joefromchicago wrote:
Thomas wrote:
So is intercourse with inflateable plastic dolls, which I'm sure the 4th and 14th amendments protect.

I'm not sure how the 4th amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures would protect intercourse with inflatable dolls, although it would certainly protect against the seizure of that doll by the state. Instead, sex with inanimate objects would most likely be protected under the general liberty interest of the 14th amendment.

Thanks. I would have thought that the 4th amendment, as incorporated by the 14th, would prohibit as an unreasonable search that the police intruded the privacy of my bedroom and checked what I do with my toys there. But, needless to say, I could be wrong.

joefromchicago wrote:
The state, after all, protects various classes of persons (e.g. minors, persons with diminished mental capacities, etc.) in their contractual relationships. The state determines that those classes of persons, because of their inherently unequal bargaining power and the increased risk of abuse, require the special solicitude of the laws. The same could be said of people in certain types of incestuous unions.

I agree, and that's why pedophiles are not on my list of people whose relations should be treated equally. But in my judgment, "two consenting grown-ups who know what they're doing" is the proper test for determining the classes of people which the government can properly regulate. The current test, "does public majority opinion agree with the way you have sex", is lousy policy, though I think it's not quite lousy enough to be unconstitutional.

But who knows? Eighteen months ago, somewhere in Blatham's thread, you explained to me the equal protection argument why the constitution compels the states to recognize gay marriage. If I remember correctly, I called it "ridiculous". That was certainly an error on my part, though I still don't find the argument entirely persuasive. Who knows what I'll think about the matter 18 months in the future?
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2006 08:20 am
Gallup: Most Americans Still Find Homosexuality Immoral
When will people overcome their religious biases?---BBB

Gallup: Most Americans Still Find Homosexuality Immoral
By E&P Staff
Published: May 31, 2006 10:10 AM ET
E & P

A new report from Gallup based on the latest polls reports profoundly "mixed" feelings among American about homosexuality. But in one key finding, only 44% of Americans say homosexuality is morally acceptable while 51% say it is morally wrong.

And just 39% say gay marriage should be legal.

Other results: 54% saying homosexuality is an acceptable "lifestyle" and 56% say it should be legal. And almost 9 in 10 says gays should receive equal job opportunities.

On the morality question, Gallup finds a wide split, ranging from 74% acceptance among liberal Americans to 18% among frequent churchgoers. A strong generational split is also evident, as only one-third (32%) of seniors say it is morally acceptable, compared with 54% of those under 40.

While 53% of Demcrats back legally valid gay marriage, only 19% of Republicans support the idea.

Gallup surveyed 1,002 adults earlier this month.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2006 08:29 am
Thomas wrote:
Eighteen months ago, somewhere in Blatham's thread, you explained to me the equal protection argument why the constitution compels the states to recognize gay marriage. If I remember correctly, I called it "ridiculous". That was certainly an error on my part, though I still don't find the argument entirely persuasive. Who knows what I'll think about the matter 18 months in the future?

You disagreed with me? I find that difficult to believe.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2006 08:35 am
joefromchicago wrote:
You disagreed with me? I find that difficult to believe.

I can imagine that. It's amazing how much you have changed.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2006 08:39 am
Report: Bush Preparing New Push For Anti-Gay Amendment
Report: Bush Preparing New Push For Anti-Gay Amendment
by Paul Johnson, 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief
May 30, 2006 - 1:00 pm ET

(Washington) President Bush reportedly will hold a Rose Garden press conference on June 5 to press Congress to enact the so-called Federal Marriage Amendment that would ban same-sex marriage.

The conservative Weekly Standard reports that Bush will gather supporters of the amendment behind him as he makes his pitch.

"President Bush is once again placating extremists and pushing discrimination when he should be finding solutions for the real challenges facing Americans," Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese told 365Gay.com.
"It's despicable that he would use this opportunity and the spotlight of the Rose Garden not to unite the country, but to advocate discriminatory and divisive politics."

June 5 is the same day that the proposed amendment will be debated in the Senate.

The president has rarely mentioned the proposed amendment since 2004 when it failed to get enough votes to proceed. The measure was reintroduced this year.

The proposed amendment would bar same-sex couples from marrying, block courts and state legislatures allowing gay marriage, nullify marriages already performed in Massachusetts - the only state in the country where they are currently legal - and according to critics possibly block civil unions and override domestic partner laws.

The amendment was introduced by Senator Wayne Allard and reads: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

While most Republicans were solidly behind the amendment in 2004 the party is deeply divided this time. Earlier this month First Lady Laura Bush said the marriage issue should not be used as an election tool.

The Human Rights Campaign recently came under criticism for endorsing the re-election of Republican Rep. Mary Bono (Calif.). But the organization says Bono is illustrative of moderate Republicans who support LGBT issues.

Bono voted against the marriage amendment in 2004 and has announced her opposition to reintroducing it. She also supported LGBT inclusion in hate crime law and worked to see its passage in the House, although the measure later died in the Senate.

Of reports that one man in Palm Springs was so angry that Bono had been endorsed over a Democrat he changed his will removing the HRC as a beneficiary (story), the group says it was never informed it had been in the will in the first place.

HRC spokesperson Jay Smith Brown tells 365Gay.com that the organization had interviewed Bono's Democratic challenger, David M. Roth, disputing claims by Roth that he had never been contacted.

In the past HRC on rare occasions has endorsed two candidates in any one race but Brown would say only that in Ross's case no such decision has yet been reached.

"We will continue to evaluate candidates up to election day and that has been our process all along," said Brown.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 02:27 am
I find Mr. Thomas' arguments compelling. I must point out that Polyandry, Polygamy and Incest have been practiced in many societies throughout history. In Sweden, a country whose outlook is so much more liberal than our Puritanical homeland, , not only is Prostitution or fornication not a crime, father-daughter incest has a MAXIMUM punishment of only two years.

US Society is slowly becoming more like Ancient Greece. Soon, pederasty, incest, polygamy and polyandry will become common.
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 12:54 am
BernardR wrote:
I find Mr. Thomas' arguments compelling. I must point out that Polyandry, Polygamy and Incest have been practiced in many societies throughout history. In Sweden, a country whose outlook is so much more liberal than our Puritanical homeland, , not only is Prostitution or fornication not a crime, father-daughter incest has a MAXIMUM punishment of only two years.

US Society is slowly becoming more like Ancient Greece. Soon, pederasty, incest, polygamy and polyandry will become common.


*crickets*

Surprised? Surprised notta.

Why when a heterosexual does'nt want to be equated with a homosexual in regards to rights they are regarded as discriminatory or bigoted (like Bernard here for instance)?

If Homosexuals do not desire to be equated in the same way with those who would practice incest,,,,,,,,what would that make those homosexuals?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 08:01 am
Bartikus wrote:
If Homosexuals do not desire to be equated in the same way with those who would practice incest,,,,,,,,what would that make those homosexuals?

Rational?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 09:52 am
Hi Joe --

Did you have the chance and the inclination to look at the recent judicial setbacks to gay marriage in New York, Connecticut, Washington, and the appeals court for the 8th circuit? If you did, I'd be interested in hearing what you make of these decisions.

That goes for you too, Debra -- if you're still following this thread.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 10:01 am
And does anyone know the status of the New Jersey case in the original post of this thread?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 10:08 am
Gay marriage lost. (Link to Boston Globe article)
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 10:12 am
From the link above:

Quote:
The 2-to-1 decision rejected the efforts of seven same-sex couples to marry, although the case is expected to go to the state Supreme Court.


<sigh> 2-to-1, let's hope the NJ SC has other ideas.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 12:13 pm
Thomas wrote:
Hi Joe --

Did you have the chance and the inclination to look at the recent judicial setbacks to gay marriage in New York, Connecticut, Washington, and the appeals court for the 8th circuit? If you did, I'd be interested in hearing what you make of these decisions.

I've only read the news reports. I haven't had a chance to look at the decisions.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/18/2021 at 10:50:46