Supreme Court overturns Texas Sodomy Law (w00t!)

[Joe DeFuria]

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.

No, because there is clear constitutional grounds for striking down that law.

Just as there is clear constitutional grounds for strking down the Texas law, just not the actual grounds argued.

They can have their values all they want in their own family. But they should not be allowed to keep interracial couples, who wish to get married to one another, apart.

Agreed.

Oh most certainly not. But when someone's morals interfere with the constitution, the supreme court has the power to overturn legislation.

Agreed. The point is, "morals" be they "religious based" or "self conceived" are legislated on all the time. The difference between an acceptably legislated moral, and an unacceptable one, is the constitutionality.

This is also the reason why the constitution is rather "difficult" to amend. (2/3 majority of congress, and I bleive 3/4 of the states themselves).

See the destruction of the anti-miscegenation laws, and a few days ago the destruction of the homosexually biased sodomy laws as example.

And how exactly did the destruction of that law make "society" look upon homosexuality any differently?

Which forced a societal change as well. You try forcibly segregating a school now and see where that lands you.

I could sit in my cafeteria at Rutgers, and watch the segregation happen all on its own. Whites on one side, blacks on the other. Didn't seem to have that great of a "societal impact."

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.

You simply have no grounds to determine which was the cause and which was the effect.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

It covered no such thing. Healthy heterosexual seniors are incapable of sexual reproduction, thus they fall outside the boundaries of your definition.

Sigh:

First of all, this doesn't explicity say how to handle "individuals who are not capable of sexual reproduction." But I believe it's logical to say that any situation where this occurs via "natural or uncontrollable" circumstances (such as menupause, disease, or genetic disorder), should fall back to "if the individual was 'healthy', and was capable of sexual reproduction....."

'Healthy' (purposely put in quotes to avoid this very discussion), meaning NOT put in that situation due to "natural or uncontrollable circumstances".

But again, this was covered in that other thread, so there is certainly no need to retread on this ground yet again.

Particularly true if you're just going to ignore my comments as if they don't exist.

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.

And where in the constitution does it say a propensity for genetic defects is some grounds to discriminate and not treat equally?

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.

It doesn't matter. You are avoiding the fundamental question: What does reproduction have to do with marriage. Why should reproduction have ANY BEARING WHATSOEVER on the ability of people TO GET MARRIED?

 

[Natoma]

And how exactly did the destruction of that law make "society" look upon homosexuality any differently?

It hasn't. Just like Brown v. Board of Education didn't cause society to all of a sudden accept desegregation willingly. It was merely a groundswell shift that will mark significant changes in the coming century.

I could sit in my cafeteria at Rutgers, and watch the segregation happen all on its own. Whites on one side, blacks on the other. Didn't seem to have that great of a "societal impact."

You can't do that *legally* now. You can't force a white student to sit with white students if they want to sit with black students, and vice versa. The schools I went to had pretty nice diverse cultures, as did the college I went to. That would not have been possible 50 years ago.

Most young people today don't even think about race as part of the equation. I never said it would be immediate. I simply said it would happen.

You simply have no grounds to determine which was the cause and which was the effect.

I have no grounds? You must have missed the vast riots, death threats, and extreme social upheaval of the 50's and 60's due to forced desegregation, or not studied them in school. If I recall correctly, this country was on the verge of being torn apart because of this issue. Hell an entire war was fought because of race and slavery. So if Brown v. Board of Education wasn't a cause for change in this society, I don't know what was.

 

[Natoma]

It covered no such thing. Healthy heterosexual seniors are incapable of sexual reproduction, thus they fall outside the boundaries of your definition.

Sigh:

First of all, this doesn't explicity say how to handle "individuals who are not capable of sexual reproduction." But I believe it's logical to say that any situation where this occurs via "natural or uncontrollable" circumstances (such as menupause, disease, or genetic disorder), should fall back to "if the individual was 'healthy', and was capable of sexual reproduction....."

'Healthy' (purposely put in quotes to avoid this very discussion), meaning NOT put in that situation due to "natural or uncontrollable circumstances".

Eddie and I are not capable of sexual reproduction with one another through circumstances beyond our control, which are certainly natural (see sexual orientation). Nor are any other homosexuals. We are physically capable of reproduction, but not with one another.

So by your definition, we aren't healthy, but we definitely fit your description of what fits a "good" relationship. Next.

But again, this was covered in that other thread, so there is certainly no need to retread on this ground yet again.

Particularly true if you're just going to ignore my comments as if they don't exist.

Not ignoring your comments. Just punching a whole hell lot of holes in them.

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.

And where in the constitution does it say a propensity for genetic defects is some grounds to discriminate and not treat equally?

It doesn't. And frankly an incestuous couple in the future will no doubt argue along those lines. But that would not be an outgrowth of homosexuality as they are completely unrelated.

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.

It doesn't matter. You are avoiding the fundamental question: What does reproduction have to do with marriage. Why should reproduction have ANY BEARING WHATSOEVER on the ability of people TO GET MARRIED?

I haven't avoided any fundamental question. In my opinion, reproduction has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage. Senior citizens can get married. Infertile couples (either through artificial means or natural means) can get married. You're the one that stipulated the reproduction clause as a reason for a valid, marriage worthy couple.

It's your definition that would allow for incest.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

It hasn't. Just like Brown v. Board of Education didn't cause society to all of a sudden accept desegregation willingly. It was merely a groundswell shift that will mark significant changes in the coming century.

Or is it a groundwell shift that marked significant changes in the past century?

I could sit in my cafeteria at Rutgers, and watch the segregation happen all on its own. Whites on one side, blacks on the other. Didn't seem to have that great of a "societal impact."

You can't do that *legally* now. You can't force a white student to sit with white students if they want to sit with black students, and vice versa. The schools I went to had pretty nice diverse cultures, as did the college I went to. That would not have been possible 50 years ago.

Where did I say it was forced? It was completely voluntary. It was real, and happened every day. Our school had an EXTREMELY diverse make-up. That doesn't mean people's attitudes about other cultures changed.

I have no grounds? You must have missed the vast riots, death threats, and extreme social upheaval of the 50's and 60's due to forced desegregation, or not studied them in school.

Kind of like the hate crimes, riots, death threats and social upheaval of today?

If I recall correctly, this country was on the verge of being torn apart because of this issue.

Right...and this is because society was changing, and has been changing for decades. Not because it was stagnant up until the decision was made, which enabled change, which put an end to rioting, hate crimes, death threats, etc.

 

[Silent_One]

Notoma wrote:

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.

*Sigh*
There you go sterilizing couples again......
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=134954&highlight=#134954

Natoma wrote:

The reason why I'm against incest is because of the genetic defects that it can cause. However, if the incestuous couple were sterilized, or if they used genetic manipulation (obviously some time far in the future) to make sure that none of the recessive genes that could cause issues were stamped out then there could be no objection to incest anymore by anyone. At it's base, incest is a heterosexual construct. Remove the issues of deformity and it becomes just like a "normal" heterosexual relationship.

Natoma wrote:

First off I never stated that someone of lower intellect doesn't deserve a chance. I said that if the parents know that their child has a higher probability of having some disease that could incapacitate them mentally or physically, they should take the best pre-natal and neo-natal care they can provide.

To know that you and your wife have a high propensity for Down Syndrome should clue you into getting tested and doing whatever you can to prevent your child from having Down Syndrome. If you don't do that and say you'll just leave it up to chance, then I would consider that irresponsible because you are potentially saddling your child with physical and/or mental disabilities that otherwise it would not need to experience.

So, in one caes (incest) you want the couple sterilized to insure ther could be no children with genetic defects. In the other cases, under your humanistic principles you believe it irresponsible if a couple did not get "tested and doing whatever you can to prevent your child from having Down Syndrome". Both have potential genetic risks. Genetic manipulation is too far in the future. The first couple you sterilized. Your inconsistent

 

[Natoma]

I could sit in my cafeteria at Rutgers, and watch the segregation happen all on its own. Whites on one side, blacks on the other. Didn't seem to have that great of a "societal impact."

You can't do that *legally* now. You can't force a white student to sit with white students if they want to sit with black students, and vice versa. The schools I went to had pretty nice diverse cultures, as did the college I went to. That would not have been possible 50 years ago.

Where did I say it was forced? It was completely voluntary. It was real, and happened every day. Our school had an EXTREMELY diverse make-up. That doesn't mean people's attitudes about other cultures changed.

People have a choice of who they want to associate with. The point is you can't force them to disassociate themselves from people simply because of their race anymore.

The choice to segregate in a cafeteria is completely legal and fine by me. But 50 years ago, that wouldn't have been a choice. It would have been enforced by the government.

I have no grounds? You must have missed the vast riots, death threats, and extreme social upheaval of the 50's and 60's due to forced desegregation, or not studied them in school.

Kind of like the hate crimes, riots, death threats and social upheaval of today?

Not nearly to the extent of what was going on in the 50's and 60's. You should talk to your parents about that time. I have.

If I recall correctly, this country was on the verge of being torn apart because of this issue.

Right...and this is because society was changing, and has been changing for decades. Not because it was stagnant up until the decision was made, which enabled change, which put an end to rioting, hate crimes, death threats, etc.

Uhm, most of the social upheaval that we call the civil rights movement didn't begin until after Brown v. Board of Education. That was the pivotal moment in Civil Rights history when it all hit the fan. But before then it was in tiny bits and pieces that were mere blips on the radar.

 

[Natoma]

Silent_one:

I addressed this in that other thread. I suggest you take this topic back to that one and read up a little. This is a completely different discussion.

*If* you want to get started in that other thread again, I suggest you respond in there. I won't be responding to it in here.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Eddie and I are not capable of sexual reproduction with one another through circumstances beyond our control, which are certainly natural (see sexual orientation). Nor are any other homosexuals. We are physically capable of reproduction, but not with one another.

So by your definition, we aren't healthy, but we definitely fit your description of what fits a "good" relationship. Next.

Again, you just don't like to read, do you?

Here is the full text of that post for your review. Note the BOLD part. If that condition is met (which it is as you stated in the case of you and Eddie), then you stop there. It's only IF you are individually INCAPABLE of reproducing that you have to look at the individual circumstances of "why" you are not capable.

If two people, who are individually capable of sexual reproduction, enter into a relationship where sexual reproduction is not possible, that is "wrong."

There are a few interesting offshoots of wording it that way:

1) First of all, this doesn't explicity say how to handle "individuals who are not capable of sexual reproduction." But I believe it's logical to say that any situation where this occurs via "natural or uncontrollable" circumstances (such as menupause, disease, or genetic disorder), should fall back to "if the individual was 'healthy', and was capable of sexual reproduction....."

2) That leaves the open question of "what if someone chooses to make themselves incapable of reproduction?". As far as this being "right and wrong", This can have a topic of it's own. But "choosing" to make yourself incapable of reproduction is certainly not "natural".

So, whether or not one believes that homosexuality is a "choice" or not, is irrelevant, and my definition would hold.

Edit: Addition...

Using my definition, one could conclude that "homosexual relationships" are not wrong, if they argued that homosexuality was in fact a disease or disorder.

Not ignoring your comments. Just punching a whole hell lot of holes in them.

It's easy to punch holes in an argument when you don't adhere to the actual argument, isn't it?

It doesn't. And frankly an incestuous couple in the future will no doubt argue along those lines. But that would not be an outgrowth of homosexuality as they are completely unrelated.

TO YOU it's unrelated. To me they have a strong relationship. I don't see how you can say they're not related when you claim to be "seeking the same treatment" that they are, and based on the same thing: equal treatment.

I haven't avoided any fundamental question. In my opinion, reproduction has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage.

So why is it OK to legislate against brother-sister incestual marriages?

It's your definition that would allow for incest.

I think murder is wrong too...but not because of the inability to conceive children.

My definition isn't wholly inclusive of what is "right." It only identifies one criteria for being "wrong." I reject incest on a similar reason that you do: high probabilty of genetic defects.

If you must, think of it this way: homosexuality results in the ultimate "genetic defect" in the highest probability: 100% chance of no children at all.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

People have a choice of who they want to associate with. The point is you can't force them to disassociate themselves from people simply because of their race anymore.

What's your point?

My point is that YES, people have the choice! (And that's good.) And in many cases, people are CHOOSING to segreagte themselves. In other words: a "law" does not magically cause society to alter behavior...it only alters the perception of it.

The choice to segregate in a cafeteria is completely legal and fine by me. But 50 years ago, that wouldn't have been a choice. It would have been enforced by the government.

Again, this is all understood but irrelevent to the point at hand. (Which is about the law bringing out societal change.) The law 50 years ago certainly didn't bring about societal change in the cafeteria.

Not nearly to the extent of what was going on in the 50's and 60's. You should talk to your parents about that time. I have.

Great...you still haven't made the convincing argument of the LAW causing the societal change, or societal changes resulting in the law being overturned.

100 years before the law was overturned, would there be a supreme court that would have overturned the law?

Uhm, most of the social upheaval that we call the civil rights movement didn't begin until after Brown v. Board of Education.

That doesn't mean that Brown v. Board caused the changes.

 

[Natoma]

1) Ok. So you have Person A and Person B. Person A and B are both individually capable of sexual reproduction.

Person A enters into a relationship with Person C who is not capable of reproduction. Person A has thus committed an atrocity in your definition since they have entered into a relationship with someone who cannot reproduce.

Guess that invalidates May-December relationships.

2) I see no incestual couples "seeking the same treatment." This is a purely hypothetical argument. We might as well be arguing if it's ok for a sentient AI to get into a relationship with a reproductively capable human being.

3) If homosexuality results in the ultimate "genetic defect" in the highest probability of 100% no chance of children at all, then geriatric relationships also result in the ultimate "genetic defect" in the highest probability of 100% no chance of children at all as well. Not to mention sterile couples.

I reject your definition because of that. No ifs ands or buts about it. They are 100% incapable of reproduction as a couple. Thus they result in the ultimate "genetic defect" of no reproduction.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

It's rather unfortunate, (or fortunate, depending on your point of view) but at this point I have to pack it up and get ready to leave on my vacation.

Going to Wisconsin to visit the in-laws! I'll be back on the the 11th.

I may log on sporadically over the next week, but probably won't be doing all that much posting.

Have fun everyone....even you Natoma!

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Well, what the hell, one more because I can't stand people just ignoring already made arguments:

Person A enters into a relationship with Person C who is not capable of reproduction. Person A has thus committed an atrocity in your definition since they have entered into a relationship with someone who cannot reproduce.

No, the relationship between person A and person C is not an atrocity by my definition. Why is person C not capable of reproduction?

I see no incestual couples "seeking the same treatment."

You don't? It's probably because society ridicules them so much that they are AFRAID to "come out of the closet", right?

Gee, Natoma, the fact that there are LAWS AGAINST IT, might just imply that it has been tried in the past, no?

If homosexuality results in the ultimate "genetic defect" in the highest probability of 100% no chance of children at all, then geriatric relationships also result in the ultimate "genetic defect" in the highest probability of 100% no chance of children at all as well. Not to mention sterile couples.

See my definition again.

Homosexuality results in the ultimate genetic defect even though on an individual basis, there can be nothing abnormal that would dictate such issues.

 

[Natoma]

Joe:

When I look around in society in general, I see a level of diversity, multiculturalism, desegregation, and acceptance of other cultures that has not existed in this country, ever. Before the 50's and 60's, this country was not moving in that direction in a coherant fashion.

Brown v. Board of Education was the pivotal moment in which it all coalesced into individual citizenship rights. And that wrenched the country forward, maybe faster even than it could really handle peacefully.

 

[Silent_One]

Silent_one:

I addressed this in that other thread. I suggest you take this topic back to that one and read up a little. This is a completely different discussion.

Natoma-
I always like it when you dismiss subjects you don't want to talk about. It's a familiar tactic you use over and over.
That said, you are again being inconsistent, of which much of this thread is about.
Joe wrote:

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?

Quote:

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.)

Inconsistent


Natoma wrote:

If* you want to get started in that other thread again, I suggest you respond in there. I won't be responding to it in here

I did not think you would be responding to that thread anymore.

Anyways, I'm getting off at this stop. I've said my peace. There are 20+ pages with my thoughts completely laid out, so at this point it will be nothing but a rehash anyways.

 

[Natoma]

Well, what the hell, one more because I can't stand people just ignoring already made arguments:

Person A enters into a relationship with Person C who is not capable of reproduction. Person A has thus committed an atrocity in your definition since they have entered into a relationship with someone who cannot reproduce.

No, the relationship between person A and person C is not an atrocity by my definition. Why is person C not capable of reproduction?

Person C is an AI.

I see no incestual couples "seeking the same treatment."

You don't? It's probably because society ridicules them so much that they are AFRAID to "come out of the closet", right?

Gee, Natoma, the fact that there are LAWS AGAINST IT, might just imply that it has been tried in the past, no?

Oh most certainly, with deleterious effects. I told you about that island in the south atlantic right? Where the entire population is no more distantly related than 1st cousin?

If homosexuality results in the ultimate "genetic defect" in the highest probability of 100% no chance of children at all, then geriatric relationships also result in the ultimate "genetic defect" in the highest probability of 100% no chance of children at all as well. Not to mention sterile couples.

See my definition again.

Homosexuality results in the ultimate genetic defect even though on an individual basis, there can be nothing abnormal that would dictate such issues.

Ok. Lets take this into the future. AI can "reproduce" through software means. A human can reproduce as well. Thus if they get together, they are invalid.

Two heterosexual couples can reproduce. They use condoms and other means of contraception to prevent that. They are invalid by your definition.

Hmm..

 

[Natoma]

Silent_One:

There is no inconsistency in my argument. I have stated why incest is not legal by the government, as well as ways in which they can circumvent those reasons. I have not stated which way or another which reason is the preferrable course of action, merely the choices available due to those reasons. This isn't difficult at all.

I said the same exact thing in the other thread, which is why I said go back there if you're having trouble understanding.

 

[Natoma]

It's rather unfortunate, (or fortunate, depending on your point of view) but at this point I have to pack it up and get ready to leave on my vacation.

Going to Wisconsin to visit the in-laws! I'll be back on the the 11th.

I may log on sporadically over the next week, but probably won't be doing all that much posting.

Have fun everyone....even you Natoma!

I never have fun. You're discriminating against me by ordering me to have fun. How dare you. Where's my lawyer? I want to sue.

p.s.: in case you couldn't tell, i was being sarcastic. have fun.

 

[Dave H]

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.

Natoma, I agree with you on just about everything else in this thread, but this is factually incorrect. The majority opinion in Lawrence was made on right to privacy grounds: they held that there is a presumptive (but not absolute) right--derived from the general right to liberty found in the due process clause of the 14th Amendment--to choose one's own sexual behavior behind closed doors, and that there is "no legitimate state interest," in the case of consensual adult gay sex, to override that presumption. Bans on gay marriage are not affected by Lawrence, for three reasons:

1. Marriage is a public, not a private, behavior; the right to privacy is neither here nor there.

2. Similarly, regulation of marriage is entirely a "legitimate state interest", because marriage (in the context we're discussing) is simply a state function. Yes, there is also a private, religious notion of marriage which usually (but no means always) happens to coincide with the state-sanctioned version, but as Joe's blather about "inventing new religions" (as if many mainstream religions don't already sanction gay marriage ceremonies) points out, the two functions are logically seperate.

3. The majority opinion in Lawrence explicitly mentions state bans on gay marriage as something their decision does not overturn.

Lawrence v. Texas[/url]]The present case...does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.... The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.... The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

p. 17-18 of the majority opinion, p21-22 of the PDF; emphasis added

Similarly, O'Connor's concurring opinion, which overturnes the Texas law on the basis of equal protection rather than the right to privacy, makes a similar exemption to retain the State's right to ban gay marriage--she says there could be a "rational basis" for the State to "preserve the traditional institution of marriage". (p. 7 of her opinion, p.29 of the PDF.) IMO the distinction makes less sense in a decision based on equal protection, and her opinion has no force of law anyways, as there is a majority without it, but it's there anyways as a possible precedent if and when the ban on gay marriage is taken up on equal protection grounds.

This isn't to say that Lawrence doesn't take the cause of gay marriage much further with respect to future battles in the courts; but not only are there many further obstacles in the law to be overcome, but Lawrence specifically discusses the ban on gay marriage an example that does not meet the criteria they use to overturn bans on sodomy.

As for the military, the Supreme Court has traditionally deferred its authority over military rules. To take a simple example, the right to say "George W. Bush is an idiot" is about the most basic constitutionally protected behavior there is; but if I was in the Army and said that about my Commander in Chief, I could and would be disciplined. Or look at the military system of criminal justice, which doesn't respect any of the procedures or rights for the accused the Supreme Court has found constitutionally protected with respect to the civilian criminal justice system.

The military has said the ban on homosexuals is necessary for "unit cohesion". I think that's bunk, but it's also the sort of argument the Supreme Court will defer to the military's judgement. Remember: Truman integrated the military by executive order; the Supreme Court had nothing to do with it. Some future president will do the same for homosexuals; the only question is how long it will take.

 

[Silent_One]

There is no inconsistency in my argument. I have stated why incest is not legal by the government, as well as ways in which they can circumvent those reasons. I have not stated which way or another which reason is the preferrable course of action, merely the choices available due to those reasons. This isn't difficult at all.

I said the same exact thing in the other thread, which is why I said go back there if you're having trouble understanding.

Natoma-
First, I understand completely what the other thread said, and if fact, what you never addressed in the other thread.

Second, I said you were inconsistent in that thread because you never stipulated sterilization of couples whom may have high rates of genetic abnormalities in their children. Only for incest. Both Joe and I pressed you on this issue but, as usual, you avoided the issue.

Third, this thread has drifted OT to touch many issues. Your response to Joe's statements brought up this issue. Sorry if I reintroduced an issue I felt you never quite addressed in the other thread, but since the door was opened.....