Supreme Court overturns Texas Sodomy Law (w00t!)

[DemoCoder]

And why does sex feel good? Because it's designed to

Designed by whom?

, what with all the mass of nerve endings and whatnot around the genital areas. Whatever the animal - human or otherwise - they like doing things which feel good and this is why animals have evolved in such a way that the reproductive act feels good.

But it's not the reproductive act itself that feels good. It is stimulation of the genitalia, and this occurs through many means besides just vaginal sex. Oral sex isn't a reproductive act. Masturbation isn't a reproductive act.

If our sex drive really was "designed" for reproduction, then the design sucks and so does the designer, because the majority of the activity it drives us to do does not result in reproduction, and yes, homosexuality is also one of the side effects, as well as infantilism, pedophilia, incest, BDSM, anal sex, and heterosexual missionary position (tm) sanctioned by god and prudish anti-gays


If people really feel that sex is about reproduction, and that homosexuality == unnatural and wrong for this reason, they should also stop jerking off.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I really don't want to allow myself to get dragged into this again, as my thoughts were painfully laid out in another thread...but...

If our sex drive really was "designed" for reproduction, then the design sucks and so does the designer, because the majority of the activity it drives us to do does not result in reproduction...

It certainly results in "enough" reproduction, wouldn't you say?

and yes, homosexuality is also one of the side effects, as well as infantilism, pedophilia, incest, BDSM, anal sex, and heterosexual missionary position (tm) sanctioned by god and prudish anti-gays

Of course, it could be that all of those disorders you listed are not merely a side effect of pure sexuality, but sexuality combined with faulty brain wiring and / or faulty societal influence.

In any case, I see people here concentrating on sex acts, vs. a sexual relationship. Sex acts, done in the privacy of your own home between concenting adults, I don't have any problem with. (To be clear, this doesn't mean a law that was legislated by the electorate should be overturned by the Supreme Court on this basis.)

It's the sexual relationship between two same sex partners that I consider wrong.

And again, it's not something that I would personally legislate against, but it is something I feel is wrong.

 

[Mariner]

Designed by whom?

Well, 'designed' by evolution, if you go with the common theory i.e. natural selection.

But it's not the reproductive act itself that feels good. It is stimulation of the genitalia, and this occurs through many means besides just vaginal sex. Oral sex isn't a reproductive act. Masturbation isn't a reproductive act.

Well, obviously this is the case when you are talking about humans. Think about animals, as well, and many of them will 'shag anything that moves' to use the vernacular e.g. 'homosexual' acts by dogs, elephants, whatever. But, as Joe points out, the pleasure gleaned from sexual acts, whatever the outcome, certainly leads to 'enough' reproduction. In other words if an animal (or human) has the urge to perform sexual acts then some of them will have the desired (designed?) effect of reproduction.

 

[Dave H]

DemoCoder has it exactly right. From the point of view of our genes, the purpose of sex is "reproduction". (Or actually not, since our genes reproduce themselves just fine asexually. Rather the purpose is to introduce variation into their host population.)

But from the point of view of us as persons, the purpose of sex has little to do with its reproductive function in the vast majority of cases. And this is the point of view we should take. Indeed, the notion of people as whole, independent, sentient persons, rather than mere carriers for genes, is the basis for all our social, legal and moral norms. It can be very instructive to take the "selfish gene" point of view for theoretical purposes, but for matters of practical policy it is completely inappropriate and indeed denies the concept of humanity.

 

[RussSchultz]

So, who's for this new consitutional amendment?

I like the premise (_marriage_ is something the states cannot legislate, but they are free to legislate civil unions, domestic partnership, benefits, etc), but I'm not sure about the need to define marriage at all. It should be entirely in the domain of religion.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

So, who's for this new consitutional amendment?

I like the premise (_marriage_ is something the states cannot legislate, but they are free to legislate civil unions, domestic partnership, benefits, etc), but I'm not sure about the need to define marriage at all. It should be entirely in the domain of religion.

I'm mostly in agreement with you.

The thing is, the reason for the proposed constitutional ammendment is that based on the Texas case, it's feared that it must be "defined", or else the courts will define it as they see fit...not as "the people" see fit. The only way to prevent the courts from ruling on "what is marriage", is to striclty define it in the constitution. That doesn't give the court any leeway.

I agree that states should be able to legislate "civil unions" however they want to.

 

[Natoma]

and yes, homosexuality is also one of the side effects, as well as infantilism, pedophilia, incest, BDSM, anal sex, and heterosexual missionary position (tm) sanctioned by god and prudish anti-gays

Of course, it could be that all of those disorders you listed are not merely a side effect of pure sexuality, but sexuality combined with faulty brain wiring and / or faulty societal influence.

Wow. Joe considers heterosexual missionary position to be a disorder? Whodathunkit.

 

[Natoma]

So, who's for this new consitutional amendment?

I like the premise (_marriage_ is something the states cannot legislate, but they are free to legislate civil unions, domestic partnership, benefits, etc), but I'm not sure about the need to define marriage at all. It should be entirely in the domain of religion.

If marriage should be entirely in the domain of religion, then the government must not recognize any marital status or benefits for marriage. We do have a system of separation of church and state you know, to prevent the establishment of a government sanctioned religion/religious body.

If marriage is to be entirely in the domain of religion, then government needs to get out of it completely and remove any and all benefits/legislation for marriage, or else it would be unconstitutional. But I don't see that happening. So if that's the case, then marriage needs to be in the domain of the legal, which would make it illegal to deny homosexuals the right to marry one another.

 

[RussSchultz]

Well, from the viewpoint of separation of church and state, the state cannot tell anybody who they should accept as married. That would be the state imposing its will upon a religion which believes, right or wrong, that homosexuality is against God.

If you insist on pushing yourself and your lifestyle into the domain of religions where it is expressly and vehemently unwanted and condemned, you will only sow more grief for yourself.

What better way to avoid that sort of mess than remove the religious trappings of marriage from the table and focus on the pragmatic and tangible benefits of what you're missing out on (insurance coverage, inheritance, etc)? Or (rhetorical question) are you simply interested in foisting your beliefs on others?

 

[Natoma]

So, who's for this new consitutional amendment?

I like the premise (_marriage_ is something the states cannot legislate, but they are free to legislate civil unions, domestic partnership, benefits, etc), but I'm not sure about the need to define marriage at all. It should be entirely in the domain of religion.

I'm mostly in agreement with you.

The thing is, the reason for the proposed constitutional ammendment is that based on the Texas case, it's feared that it must be "defined", or else the courts will define it as they see fit...not as "the people" see fit. The only way to prevent the courts from ruling on "what is marriage", is to striclty define it in the constitution. That doesn't give the court any leeway.

I agree that states should be able to legislate "civil unions" however they want to.

Marriage was once defined by "the people" as a union between those of the same race only. Anything other than that was considered illegal. Yay Anti-Miscegenation Laws.

Yet the Supreme Court struck down these laws as unconstitutional. It seems that sometimes "the people" need to be led kicking and screaming when it violates the constitution, even if they can't stand it. The unconstitutionality of the Sodomy Laws could have easily been argued on the basis of violating the Equal Protection Clause because these laws were only applied to homosexuals in Texas, but not heterosexuals. However, if this had been brought up in other states, it might not have held the same water due to the fact that *anyone* engaging in Sodomy (non-coital sex) could be prosecuted. Though you can see what a can of worms that'd open.

And we don't even need to mention the DOMA which specifically defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. This was brought up specifically because Hawaii and Vermont were on the verge of allowing gay marriage in the early 90's. However, DOMA also states that if a state chooses to grant gay marriages, the other states do not need to recognize this and can choose to ignore the marriage. Obviously this violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause. A recent article I read wrt Bill Clinton stated that one reason he signed the bill was because he knew he'd avoid a lot of political heat, and also knew that the bill would eventually be defeated because it was unconstitutional in its very nature.

There is no legal reason to deny gay marriage. There may be a *religious* reason, but this is not a "religious" country. This is a country that sought to get rid of religious tyranny in the state. And looking at the state of gay couples, there is no reason to disallow marriage. The only reasons created thus far are bigoted in nature.

Destruction of societal fabric? Elimination of the family? Create an abomination out of god's creation? The end of society as we know it? Unnatural? Ungodly? These were all arguments used to denounce miscegenation, by legal, scientific, "moral," and religious bodies at one point. In fact, some states as late as the late 1980's/early 1990's still had anti-miscegenation laws on the books, though not enforced.

Hey Democoder, you and your wife are illegal, ammoral, and you're going to cause the downfall of society and god's creation! Bet you didn't know that.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

But I don't see that happening. So if that's the case, then marriage needs to be in the domain of the legal, which would make it illegal to deny homosexuals the right to marry one another.

I understand your point.

However, there's nothing stopping you from creating a "church of Timbuktoo", which includes some service by which your church recognizes you as "married."

The STATE might not reconginze that marriage as "a legal union", but they are not interfering with your "right to be recognized by your church as married."

The Constitution can set the rules by which the federal government recognizes "marriage". If your church happens to meet those rules, such a marriage can also be recognized as a legal union by the state. So it's not a matter of the government favoring one religion or another, or being separate from religion.

It's a practical matter of religious beliefs and practices falling under governmental legal requirements.

The government can NOT declare your religion as illegal to practice on the basis that your religious definition of marriage is not the same as its own.

 

[Natoma]

Well, from the viewpoint of separation of church and state, the state cannot tell anybody who they should accept as married. That would be the state imposing its will upon a religion which believes, right or wrong, that homosexuality is against God.

If you insist on pushing yourself and your lifestyle into the domain of religions where it is expressly and vehemently unwanted and condemned, you will only sow more grief for yourself.

What better way to avoid that sort of mess than remove the religious trappings of marriage from the table and focus on the pragmatic and tangible benefits of what you're missing out on (insurance coverage, inheritance, etc)? Or (rhetorical question) are you simply interested in foisting your beliefs on others?

Uhm, I couldn't care less about religion. I care about having full rights as a tax paying, law abiding citizen of this country. If marriage is going to be in the domain of religion, then government needs to get out of marriage completely and not recognize anything about marriage. No marital benefits. No marital status. No nothing.

But then, as I stated in my just prior post, religious marriage was at one time defined as two people of the same race. Interracial couples were put in jail for trying to get married. Told they were ungodly. Would cause the destruction of society, the fall of man. They would be the end of the family and hell and brimstone would rain down upon them for defiling god's natural order. Yet they foisted their beliefs on others because it was *right* to not deny them their rights as human beings and citizens of this country.

I see the same arguments foisted by social conservatives today that were sent against interracial couples years ago until the declaration of unconstitutionality of the anti-miscegenation laws as part of the Jim Crow Laws from the 1890's. Same arguments, different skin. People need a lesson in history it seems. Never learn from the same old mistakes.

 

[Natoma]

But I don't see that happening. So if that's the case, then marriage needs to be in the domain of the legal, which would make it illegal to deny homosexuals the right to marry one another.

I understand your point.

However, there's nothing stopping you from creating a "church of Timbuktoo", which includes some service by which your church recognizes you as "married."

The STATE might not reconginze that marriage as "a legal union", but they are not interfering with your "right to be recognized by your church as married."

The Constitution can set the rules by which the federal government recognizes "marriage". If your church happens to meet those rules, such a marriage can also be recognized as a legal union by the state. So it's not a matter of the government favoring one religion or another, or being separate from religion.

It's a practical matter of religious beliefs and practices falling under governmental legal requirements.

The government can NOT declare your religion as illegal to practice on the basis that your religious definition of marriage is not the same as its own.

And if that's the only way that homosexuals could get married, then that would be in effect forcing a religious state upon us, which is unconstitutional. So by that argument, the establishment of a "religion" for homosexuals so that we can have our marital status recognized would be unconstitutional.

Thus we'd be back to square one anyways, arguing the illegality of DOMA, and other anti-gay laws.

 

[RussSchultz]

Are you that focused on calling what you want marriage that you cannot realize that this amendment seems to be promoting exactly what you want?

 

[WaltC]

Sex doesn't have a purpose, because nature doesn't have a purpose, nor does evolution. It just is. Our genes are programmed to give us to the drive to propagate, but often something which produces one effect, produces many effects. A side effect of our sex drive is that we do more than just have sex when we need to spread our genes. We have sex all the time. We think about sex alot. We masturbate. We consume sexual images. We engage in "deviant" practices. We indulge in mind altering substances, and in general, we do many things to satisfy our urges. Sex can even become an addiction.

And frankly, with six billion people on the planet, and modern biotechnology, I don't think we need to worry about massive depopulation caused by homosexuality anytime soon. A far greater menace is rich heterosexuals in western nations delaying child birth into their mid 30s, and then only having 1-2 children.

Heh-Heh...To say that heterosexual sex "has no purpose" is really overlooking the obvious. Does the act of placing food in one's mouth, masticating it and swallowing it have an obvious biological purpose apart from savoring the taste of the food? Of course. So many things do have quite obvious purposes from a biological perspective. Nothing you've said dilutes or invalidates the fact that the chief purpose of sex from a biological perspective is reproduction of the species. Other types of sex, including the practices you've mentioned, are all peripheral to that. While they may not be directly related to that purpose in practice, the fact that they all stem from the same biological imperative to have reproductive sex cannot be denied (otherwise none of these peripheral sexual practices you've mentioned would be practiced in the first place.) I don't see how increases in world population in the last 50 years or so, supported by advances in medical science and increased food and energy production in some parts of the world, have anything to do with our physical, biological makeup as two distinct sexes with complementary reproductive roles. It's in the genes and so pays no heed to changing cultural mores or conditions. Also, when I use the word "deviant" I am using it in the sense of "that which is practiced by an extreme minority of a given population" and not in a moralistic sense. To that end, for instance, masturbation would definitely not be a deviant practice, while homosexuality and other types of behavior would be deviant. (In this sense people who devote their lives to the poor and sick with no thought of their own material gain would also be considered "deviant" as they are a distinct minority within the larger population.)

I once read an interesting theory that homosexuality was a first-hand observation of natural selection at work within the human population. This might sound strange at first, but the fact is that if a person chooses not to reproduce, his genes will die with him. This is not to say, of course, that homosexuality is the only venue of gene eradication within the human population, because it certainly isn't. But barring the extremely rare and statistically irrelevant event of a homosexual reproducing artificially without engaging in heterosexuality (IV fertilization, etc., which still involves the use of both sexes), the only way for a homosexual to reproduce his genes is by engaging in hetereosexual behavior. Thus, again, a purpose in hetereosexuality beyond that of pleasure is made clear.

I think you might be confusing the various practices that spring up around the basic heterosexual genetic drive with that biological drive itself. IMO, all sexual practices spring from this drive, including homosexuality. Because of various psychological components affecting deviant individuals within the larger population as a whole, there are variations on the acting out of that drive--such as homosexuality, for instance.

Often we hear of homosexual individuals engaged in "struggles" of various types against nebulous powers which are vicariously defined as "society" or "religion" or "laws" or "self righteousness", etc and what have you. Often such a person really doesn't know what it is, precisely, that he or she is struggling against, but rightly perceives it to be a struggle against "something" (which changes according to the individual.) IMO, what the homosexual is struggling with primarily is himself--fighting against his own biological imperative towards heterosexual behavior which is operating at a genetic level far below his consciousness--and which he sees reflected in the society at large around him in which he must live. Anyway, that's my own pet theory...

As far as the Supreme Court's ruling in this case goes, I think the state bursting into people's homes and arresting them for deviant sexual activity occurring between consenting adults is a power which I think truly deserves being taken away from the state. Neither a state or Federal government should have the authority to regulate sexual behavior between consenting adults in the privacy of their homes--with the emphasis on the words "consenting adults." I do see the state having a legitimate role in sexual cases where both parties are not adults and/or both parties do not consent, regardless of whether a practice is sexually deviant.

I also find the Texas argument that nullifying such laws will result in a harm to hetereosexual marriage in any way whatever to be completely specious. The fact that this behavior has been against the law in Texas for decades does not mean that deviant sexual behavior between consenting adults behind closed doors has never been practiced in Texas. Obviously, it has been, and equally obvious is the fact that hetereosexual marriage in Texas is as healthy an institution as it has always been. Regardless of how much homosexuality is decriminalized between consenting adults, it will remain a deviant practice because the genetic and biological behavior mandating hetereosexuality as the norm predates all existing laws and religions which reinforce it. In fact, all such laws and religious exhortations towards hetereosexuality are merely a reflection of that basic human drive. It's in the genes... Decriminalizing homosexual behavior will have no effect on that whatever, and so these people are worrying needlessly. Biology will always win the argument, IMO...because the greatest number of people in any society at any given time will choose not to argue with it.

 

[Sabastian]

Yet the Supreme Court struck down these laws as unconstitutional. It seems that sometimes "the people" need to be led kicking and screaming when it violates the constitution, even if they can't stand it.

Or maybe the constitution ought to be altered. Rather then force something on a society that does not want it change the fu*king document. That pretty much epitomizes the elitist top down social engineering mentality, thanks for that.

 

[Natoma]

Are you that focused on calling what you want marriage that you cannot realize that this amendment seems to be promoting exactly what you want?

Uhm, please restate that. I don't understand what you're getting at.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Yet the Supreme Court struck down these laws as unconstitutional. It seems that sometimes "the people" need to be led kicking and screaming when it violates the constitution, even if they can't stand it.

Agreed. And in other cases, "the people" are led kicking and screaming when something doesn't violate the constitution, but some made up "intention" of the constitution.

For example: diversity is a constitutionally valid reason for discrimination? Where in the constituition does it say anything of the sort?

The unconstitutionality of the Sodomy Laws could have easily been argued on the basis of violating the Equal Protection Clause because these laws were only applied to homosexuals in Texas, but not heterosexuals.

I am perplexed as to why it was not argued on that basis, as it is a constitutional one.

However, if this had been brought up in other states, it might not have held the same water due to the fact that *anyone* engaging in Sodomy (non-coital sex) could be prosecuted. Though you can see what a can of worms that'd open.

But that's exactly what some laws in other state DO say. Homosexual or not, certain "deviant" sex acts (defined within the specific legislation) are illegal. And there's NOTHING wrong with existence of such laws.

There is no legal reason to deny gay marriage. There may be a *religious* reason, but this is not a "religious" country.

This is a country founded on cetain morals. Morals need not be tied to religion.

This is a country that sought to get rid of religious tyranny in the state. And looking at the state of gay couples, there is no reason to disallow marriage.

Natoma, "the state" for all intents and purposes decides on its moral code. If the majority decides to legistlate for or against something, it can do so. As long as it doesn't contradict the constitution.

The only reasons created thus far are bigoted in nature.

That's a matter of opinion, of course.

Destruction of societal fabric? Elimination of the family? Create an abomination out of god's creation? The end of society as we know it? Unnatural? Ungodly? These were all arguments used to denounce...

Those are all arguments used as the basis for ANY law. Laws are created to reflect societal values. Of course, these can conflict with constitutional values, which is why we have the Supreme Court to decide such matters.

 

[Natoma]

Marriage was once defined by "the people" as a union between those of the same race only. Anything other than that was considered illegal. Yay Anti-Miscegenation Laws.

Yet the Supreme Court struck down these laws as unconstitutional. It seems that sometimes "the people" need to be led kicking and screaming when it violates the constitution, even if they can't stand it.

Or maybe the constitution ought to be altered. Rather then force something on a society that does not want it change the fu*king document. That pretty much epitomizes the elitist top down social engineering mentality, thanks for that.

So basically you support anti-miscegenation because the supreme court decision making miscegenation legal was forced upon a society that didn't want it and did not want to change.

That pretty much epitomizes a bigoted social engineering mentality, thanks for that.

 

[Sabastian]

Marriage was once defined by "the people" as a union between those of the same race only. Anything other than that was considered illegal. Yay Anti-Miscegenation Laws.

Yet the Supreme Court struck down these laws as unconstitutional. It seems that sometimes "the people" need to be led kicking and screaming when it violates the constitution, even if they can't stand it.

Or maybe the constitution ought to be altered. Rather then force something on a society that does not want it change the fu*king document. That pretty much epitomizes the elitist top down social engineering mentality, thanks for that.

So basically you support anti-miscegenation because the supreme court decision making miscegenation legal was forced upon a society that didn't want it and did not want to change.

That pretty much epitomizes a bigoted social engineering mentality, thanks for that.

To hell with you that was a misquoted phrase. You are comparing to whole different discrepancies with your race based argument. Homosexuality is not a race issue. I support interracial arrangements. Homosexuality is an action not a skin color. You know I support interracial marriage I have even said it before.

EDIT: You will take note that I have edited that posting to take out your unrelated argument.