Supreme Court overturns Texas Sodomy Law (w00t!)

[Joe DeFuria]

Wrt incest, Homosexual unions cannot produce deformed children.

And partners not old enough to reproduce cannot produce deformed children either.

Homosexuals cannot produce children at all. Incest CAN produce perfectly healthy and normal children, and "non incestual" relationships can produce deformed children. Why are you discriminating against incest? What gives the government any right to do so? If this argument is good enough for homosexuals, why not apply it to incestual relationships:

"Incestual couples want to get married to their mates because they *love* one another and wish to express that in the ways deemed by our culture as one of the ultimate expressions of love and committment. That is their sole reason for wanting to get married to each other"

Homsexual unions *and* heterosexual unions should be between consenting adults.

Why? What defines an "adult"? What is so special about adults, that a union should not simply be between two consenting individuals? Do adults have all the answers about marriage? Apparently not, with the divorce rate so high and all. Certainly, that's age discrimination, and you're not applying "equal treatment" to all parties involved.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

If the government keeps my marriage from being legally recognized, then in all effects of legal protections and rights, our relationship doesn't exist. Adult Heterosexual couples can choose to get married or not. Adult Homosexual couples do not have that choice. Based on the Equal Protection Clause, that discrimination is unconstitutional.

Now replace "homosexual" with "incestual".

 

[Natoma]

Can Senior Citizens reproduce? Can the infertile reproduce? Can the paralyzed reproduce? Maybe nature is bigoted and exclusionary.

Oh, god. Old age is not an act, infertility is not an act, being paralyzed is not a action. Homosexuality is an action.

Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong.

Homosexuality is a state of sexuality. You can be a homosexual and not *act* on your sexual feelings. Just as you can be heterosexual and not *act* on your sexual feelings.

Old age is not an act. Infertility is not an act. Being paralyzed is not an act. Homosexuality is also not an act.

Now if you want to talk about those who engage in sexual homosexual activity as being unable to reproduce, then you can also talk about the old who engage in sexual heterosexual activity as being inable to reproduce, or the physiologically infertile who engage in sexual heterosexual activity as being inable to reproduce, or the paralyzed who can't engage in any sexual heterosexual activity.

You can't use reproduction as an argument because then it invalidates a great many heterosexual relationships as well.

 

[Natoma]

If the government keeps my marriage from being legally recognized, then in all effects of legal protections and rights, our relationship doesn't exist. Adult Heterosexual couples can choose to get married or not. Adult Homosexual couples do not have that choice. Based on the Equal Protection Clause, that discrimination is unconstitutional.

Now replace "homosexual" with "incestual".

Uhm, incestual couples do have the choice to get married. If you are 2nd cousin you are definitely incestual, but you can get married.

Homosexuals have no such qualifications bestowed upon us.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

You can't use reproduction as an argument because then it invalidates a great many heterosexual relationships as well.

But Natoma, just before you said that you had no problem with marriage laws using "able to reproduce" as the guideline for the age at which a marriage is recognized.

So you already used reproduction as an argument.

 

[Natoma]

Now if I understand what you're saying correctly, if I join a religion (or create a religion) that allows gay marriages, and because the government cannot discriminate in favor of one religion at the exclusion of others, then my marriage to my partner through that religion would be legally recognized.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. :?

I'm saying the government can define marriage as meeting conditions X-Y-Z.

Religion A might define marriage as A-B-C. However, If religion A's marriage is not inconsistent with the government's definition marriage, then by definition, Religion A's marriages are recongized by the state as legal.

Religion B might define marriage as D-E-F. If Religion B's definition of marriage IS inconsistent with the governenmen't s definition, then everyone in religion B's community might consider themselves married, and the government doesn't stop "marriage ceremonies" from occuring, etc, but the religion B marriages are not legally recognized.

Ok now I understand.

The question is, who sets the government's definition of what marriage is? It used to be the government defined marriage as a union between two people of the same race. Now social conservatives (the bulk of whom tend to be highly religious) are trying to define it as a union between a man and a woman solely to exclude homosexuals.

By that, the government is forcing religious ideals upon a minority, which is undoubtedly unconstitutional.

But what I'm saying is that I don't require religion, nor should I require religion, in order to get married.

That's sort-of what I'm saying as well. What should be required is your own personal belief of what "marriage" is, and that it be consistent with your partner (or partner's) belief. As long as you and your partner agree on what "being married" means to you...(and that you agree to enter the arrangement with one antoher) then you're married as far as you're concerned. Shout it from the roof tops. Rent a cheezy catering hall, hire a cheezy band or DJ, cut your "wedding cake", do the Macharina, etc.

And that's what we have right now. What we and millions of other homosexuals want is full legal and federal recognition, protection, and acceptance of our relationship, just like heterosexual couples are afforded.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Uhm, incestual couples do have the choice to get married. If you are 2nd cousin you are definitely incestual, but you can get married.

Homosexuals have no such qualifications bestowed upon us.

More circular arguments from you.

First of all, "Legal Incest" is defined by each state. Since when is a 2nd cousin by definition "incest"? In other words, if a state allows 2nd cousins to get married, it doesn't consider that incest.

All that aside, I can't believe you are offering this as a counter argument. Do I actually have to take this to the next logical level?

Sigh.

Replace "incestual" with "incestual brother and sister."

"Incestual brother and sister couples want to get married to their mates because they *love* one another and wish to express that in the ways deemed by our culture as one of the ultimate expressions of love and committment. That is their sole reason for wanting to get married to each other"

Who are you to stand in the way of their happiness?

You are not barred from getting married either any more than an incestual brother and sister are, Natoma. You claim they can "marry" as long as it's a 2nd cousin or further. You can have a marriage that is legally recognized as well...and to another homosexual even. Just not one of the same sex.

 

[Natoma]

You can't use reproduction as an argument because then it invalidates a great many heterosexual relationships as well.

But Natoma, just before you said that you had no problem with marriage laws using "able to reproduce" as the guideline for the age at which a marriage is recognized.

So you already used reproduction as an argument.

No. Some societies define you able to get married once you are capable of reproduction, which means puberty. Most everyone, homosexual or heterosexual, is capable of reproduction once they hit puberty.

I said I had no problem with that definition, even though it would be invalid in this society due to our age of consent laws. That use of reproduction is different than the one I'm speaking to sabastian about.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Ok now I understand.

The question is, who sets the government's definition of what marriage is?

We, the people.

It used to be the government defined marriage as a union between two people of the same race.

No, the federal government never did any such thing. State governments did.

Now social conservatives (the bulk of whom tend to be highly religious) are trying to define it as a union between a man and a woman solely to exclude homosexuals.

Because we, the people, believe "that's what marriage" is.

By that, the government is forcing religious ideals upon a minority, which is undoubtedly unconstitutional.

Wrong. You are foring moral ideals into being some religious one at your convenience. Athiests don't have morals? Government shouldn't make laws based on moral values?

And that's what we have right now. What we and millions of other homosexuals want is full legal and federal recognition, protection, and acceptance of our relationship, just like heterosexual couples are afforded.

Federal recognition does not breed acceptance. Acceptance will result in federal recogniztion.

You are putting the cart before the horse. Do you think the government recognition of interracial marriages forced a societal change? Or did societal change result in governmental change?

What all incestual couples want is "full legal and federal recognition...just like non incestual couples are afforded". And yet you scoff at THAT idea...

 

[Joe DeFuria]

No. Some societies define you able to get married once you are capable of reproduction, which means puberty. Most everyone, homosexual or heterosexual, is capable of reproduction once they hit puberty.

Don't get your point. What does puberty have to do with wawnting to spend the rest of your life devoted to someone?

And what about bilogically sterile folks, natoma? They won't be able to reporduce at puberty, you know. (See how all these things come back to haunt you?)

That use of reproduction is different than the one I'm speaking to sabastian about.

How so? The "litmus test" for being able to marry by these societes you speak of is reproduction. So certainly reproduction has some relevance to marriage...

 

[Natoma]

Uhm, incestual couples do have the choice to get married. If you are 2nd cousin you are definitely incestual, but you can get married.

Homosexuals have no such qualifications bestowed upon us.

More circular arguments from you.

First of all, "Legal Incest" is defined by each state. Since when is a 2nd cousin by definition "incest"? In other words, if a state allows 2nd cousins to get married, it doesn't consider that incest.

All that aside, I can't believe you are offering this as a counter argument. Do I actually have to take this to the next logical level?

Sigh.

Replace "incestual" with "incestual brother and sister."

Erm, Incest by definition is sexual relations with a family member. I didn't define the 2nd cousin qualification. Obviously the people who framed the law thought that was enough of a separation genetically, even though still family, to allow a sexually reproducing couple.

p.s.: "incestual" is nowhere to be replaced in my original statement. Care to restate?

"Incestual brother and sister couples want to get married to their mates because they *love* one another and wish to express that in the ways deemed by our culture as one of the ultimate expressions of love and committment. That is their sole reason for wanting to get married to each other"

Who are you to stand in the way of their happiness?

You are not barred from getting married either any more than an incestual brother and sister are, Natoma. You claim they can "marry" as long as it's a 2nd cousin or further. You can have a marriage that is legally recognized as well...and to another homosexual even. Just not one of the same sex.

As stated in another thread, near blood sexual heterosexual relationships have a tremendously high percentage chance of having children with massive deformities. This is not my definition for stopping incest, nor is it my concern. If you have a problem with it because you know a couple who is incestuous and wishes to be together, or you wish to be incestuous with your sister, then hey, take it up with the government.

 

[Natoma]

Ok now I understand.

The question is, who sets the government's definition of what marriage is?

We, the people.

Just as they stopped interracial couples from getting married at one point as well, for no good reason but bigotry. "We, the people" indeed.

It used to be the government defined marriage as a union between two people of the same race.

No, the federal government never did any such thing. State governments did.

The federal government created the Jim Crow Laws which the states enforced. Anti-Miscegenation was a subset of Jim Crow. It was most definitely a federal creation.

Now social conservatives (the bulk of whom tend to be highly religious) are trying to define it as a union between a man and a woman solely to exclude homosexuals.

Because we, the people, believe "that's what marriage" is.

Indeed. "We, the people," also thought at one point that it was an abomination for two people of different races to "mix" with one another. Hell in some families today in this country interracial marriage is a taboo, or at best something that makes the family highly uncomfortable.

By that, the government is forcing religious ideals upon a minority, which is undoubtedly unconstitutional.

Wrong. You are foring moral ideals into being some religious one at your convenience. Athiests don't have morals? Government shouldn't make laws based on moral values?

Wrong.

As you stated, morality is completely separate from religiousity. However, religious zealots and their constituents and leaders use their *religious* morals to subjugate a minority. And that is certainly unconstitutional.

And that's what we have right now. What we and millions of other homosexuals want is full legal and federal recognition, protection, and acceptance of our relationship, just like heterosexual couples are afforded.

Federal recognition does not breed acceptance. Acceptance will result in federal recogniztion.

You are putting the cart before the horse. Do you think the government recognition of interracial marriages forced a societal change? Or did societal change result in governmental change?

Indeed it did force societal change. Witness Brown v. Board of Education as another example of the judiciary forcing societal change.

What all incestual couples want is "full legal and federal recognition...just like non incestual couples are afforded". And yet you scoff at THAT idea...

Incestual couples, with some qualifications, are afforded the full legal and federal recognition of non incestual couples. It's in the lawbooks already.

 

[Natoma]

Look, this discussion is getting completely off topic.

The supreme court ruled that banning consensual homosexual sex is unconstitutional. So under that ruling, there is no legal reason anymore to ban homosexuals from getting married, adopting, serving openly in the military, etc.

All social conservatives have now is their own bigotry. Is it any wonder that the "right" is so scared to death these days? Thank goodness for the Supreme Court, common sense, and the constitution.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Erm, Incest by definition is sexual relations with a family member.

Erm, define "family member". Immediate? 1st cousins? Unlcle? 5th cousins?

I didn't define the 2nd cousin qualification.

Who did? And is that law written as "incestual marriages are OK, as long at it is beyond 2nd cousins". Or is the law written as "family relationships beyond 2nd cousins are not incestual, therefore OK".

Obviously the people who framed the law thought that was enough of a separation genetically, even though still family, to allow a sexually reproducing couple.

Who is the government to allow or not a sexually reproducing couple?! These people love each other Natoma!!

As stated in another thread, near blood sexual heterosexual relationships have a tremendously high percentage chance of having children with massive deformities.

Natoma, you keep on falling all over yourself. Of what concern is REPRODUCTION with respect to MARRIAGE? Why is it OK for the government to not allow incestual marriages, based on a reproductive argument[/i]? Do you not see the hypocricy?

This is not my definition for stopping incest, nor is it my concern.

No, your immediate concern is to not be hypocritical about
1) Seeing government discrimination against incestual marriages as a valid. (Wheter or not you agree with that or not.)
2) Seeing government discrimination against homosexual marriages as invlaid. (No rational person could agree with it.)

If you have a problem with it because you know a couple who is incestuous and wishes to be together, or you wish to be incestuous with your sister, then hey, take it up with the government.

Cute, Natoma.

I have a problem with incestual relationships on similar grounds that I have problems with homosexual relationships. They are both on reproductive grounds.

 

[Natoma]

No. Some societies define you able to get married once you are capable of reproduction, which means puberty. Most everyone, homosexual or heterosexual, is capable of reproduction once they hit puberty.

Don't get your point. What does puberty have to do with wawnting to spend the rest of your life devoted to someone?

And what about bilogically sterile folks, natoma? They won't be able to reporduce at puberty, you know. (See how all these things come back to haunt you?)

That use of reproduction is different than the one I'm speaking to sabastian about.

How so? The "litmus test" for being able to marry by these societes you speak of is reproduction. So certainly reproduction has some relevance to marriage...

Joe, as I said before. I was just saying this is how some societies view marriage. I just said I am fine with their definition because that is their culture. I also said that it probably would not work here due to our age of consent laws. Never said I'd actively go out and stump for it.

 

[Natoma]

I have a problem with incestual relationships on similar grounds that I have problems with homosexual relationships. They are both on reproductive grounds.

Then as I've stated before, your grounds for problems with homosexual relationships completely destroy senior citizen relationships and infertile heterosexual relationships.

Do YOU not see the hypocrisy in your statement?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Just as they stopped interracial couples from getting married at one point as well, for no good reason but bigotry. "We, the people" indeed.

Right. In other words, you don't like the U.S. government. So move, or support the creation of legislation that we the people support.

Indeed. "We, the people," also thought at one point that it was an abomination for two people of different races to "mix" with one another. Hell in some families today in this country interracial marriage is a taboo, or at best something that makes the family highly uncomfortable.

And is it your right to impose your values on such familes who do?

As you stated, morality is completely separate from religiousity. However, religious zealots and their constituents and leaders use their *religious* morals to subjugate a minority. And that is certainly unconstitutional.

Point?

Are all political leaders supposed to be athiests then? Isn't that discriminitory?

Indeed it did force societal change. Witness Brown v. Board of Education as another example of the judiciary forcing societal change.

What science is this based on? The judiciary forced a lawful change.

Incestual couples, with some qualifications, are afforded the full legal and federal recognition of non incestual couples. It's in the lawbooks already.

All human beings, with some qualifications, are afforded the full legal and federal recognition of marriage.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Then as I've stated before, your grounds for problems with homosexual relationships completely destroy senior citizen relationships and infertile heterosexual relationships.

And as I sated before, read the last post on the bottom of page 16 of that thread. It covered such relationships.

Do YOU not see the hypocrisy in your statement?

Nope. I do see a short memory on your part though.

Tell my why again It's acceptable to legislate that a brother and a sister can't "get married?"

 

[Natoma]

Just as they stopped interracial couples from getting married at one point as well, for no good reason but bigotry. "We, the people" indeed.

Right. In other words, you don't like the U.S. government. So move, or support the creation of legislation that we the people support.

Then you would have definitely hated Brown v. Board of Education which judiciously struck down school segregation setup under the legislatively created Jim Crow Laws.

Again, we the people indeed.

Indeed. "We, the people," also thought at one point that it was an abomination for two people of different races to "mix" with one another. Hell in some families today in this country interracial marriage is a taboo, or at best something that makes the family highly uncomfortable.

And is it your right to impose your values on such familes who do?

They can have their values all they want in their own family. But they should not be allowed, through government edict, to keep interracial couples, who wish to get married to one another, apart. The supreme court agreed with this and thus the Anti-Miscegenation laws were overturned.

As you stated, morality is completely separate from religiousity. However, religious zealots and their constituents and leaders use their *religious* morals to subjugate a minority. And that is certainly unconstitutional.

Point?

Are all political leaders supposed to be athiests then? Isn't that discriminitory?

Oh most certainly not. But when someone's morals interfere with the constitution, the supreme court has the power to overturn legislation. See the destruction of the anti-miscegenation laws, and a few days ago the destruction of the homosexually biased sodomy laws as example.

Indeed it did force societal change. Witness Brown v. Board of Education as another example of the judiciary forcing societal change.

What science is this based on? The judiciary forced a lawful change.

Which forced a societal change as well. You try forcibly segregating a school now and see where that lands you. You go to any work place and try segregating yourself from other people based on your skin color and see where that gets you.

The entire idea of racial segregation is most definitely not en vogue these days, in no small part to judicial rulings such as Brown v. Board of Education.

 

[Natoma]

Then as I've stated before, your grounds for problems with homosexual relationships completely destroy senior citizen relationships and infertile heterosexual relationships.

And as I sated before, read the last post on the bottom of page 16 of that thread. It covered such relationships.

It covered no such thing. Healthy heterosexual seniors are incapable of sexual reproduction, thus they fall outside the boundaries of your definition. But again, this was covered in that other thread, so there is certainly no need to retread on this ground yet again.

Tell my why again It's acceptable to legislate that a brother and a sister can't "get married?"

As I said before, the only legal reason proposed by the government to keep a brother and sister from marrying (or anyone else who is more closely related than 2nd cousin) is due to the extremely high propensity of genetic defects. As I told Sabastian, if they want to circumvent that, they can either be sterilized, or in the future when genetic manipulation allows, have children and manipulate them so that their genetic structure is not affected by the genetic abnormalities caused by incestual reproduction.