This is why marriage needs to be separately recognized

[Joe DeFuria]

Yes, i do think laws agaisnt polygamy are wrong. Why dont you?

Who said I think laws against polygamy are right? I didn't.

I'm saying we should have the right to make such a law. Please understand the difference.

So, you think that it should be alright, if a state outlawed unions between men and women, and ONLY allowed unions between same sex couples?

I would disagree with that, yes. But the state, through legislative process which is representative of the people, should have the right to do it.

 

[Althornin]

Who said I think laws against polygamy are right? I didn't.

I'm saying we should have the right to make such a law. Please understand the difference.

You certainly implied that you thought polygamy was wrong, by your tone/etc while discussing it. If that is in error, fine.

And I'm saying why should you have the right? Understand the difference?
I personally dont think you do have the right. A persons right to pursuit of happiness should not be impinged upon because you "think it is wrong".

I would disagree with that, yes. But the state, through legislative process which is representative of the people, should have the right to do it.

Why should states have the right to decide?
What makes this different from any of the other things that is decided on a federal level?
I question your ability to not prejudice your ideas with your bias.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

You certainly implied that you thought polygamy was wrong, by your tone/etc while discussing it. If that is in error, fine.

Yes, it's in error.

For what it's worth, I think polygamy is far less ideal than "one man, one woman, monogamous" relationships as it pertains to raising children. But I don't think it's "wrong."

And I'm saying why should you have the right? Understand the difference?

I don't know what you mean. Why should I have the right to do what?

I personally dont think you do have the right. A persons right to pursuit of happiness should not be impinged upon because you "think it is wrong".

That is clearly too black and white. I don't think a person's pursuit of happiness should be impinged upon becuase I think it's wrong either.

It's if the democratic majority thinks it's wrong. That's the issue here.

If a person's pursuit of happiness includes murduring or sexually abusing little kids...is it wrong to impinge on that?

Why should states have the right to decide?

For the same reason that Democratic States have the right to decide other matters...because it's representative of the people.

What makes this different from any of the other things that is decided on a federal level?

Such as?

States are soverign. Different states have their own identities, and their own ability to "define themselves." What's good for NY isn't necessarily good for North Dakota. The federal government already is involved in way too many issues that should be controlled / decided on a local basis.

I question your ability to not prejudice your ideas with your bias.

Gee, thanks! I was afraid that my ideas were based on someone else's bias.

 

[Natoma]

They're not the same situation. The state you live in recognizes the other states' sales tax laws and applies them accordingly. NYC does not recognize the civil union status from Vermont at all.

No. The state I live in does not apply any other state's sales tax at all. Nor does any other state.

If I purchase goods from New Jersey while I'm in New York, New Jersey's sales tax gets applied.

The legal state of Marriage is constitutionally protected by equal protection. The ability of homosexuals to enter into marriage is protected because homosexuality is not illegal in this country.

Then why can't homosexuals get legally married? The constitution trumps all other laws.

Blacks were constitutionally allowed to vote in the 1860s after the passage of the 15th amendment, so why is it that southern states still passed laws prohibiting them from voting?

Just because protections and rights are in the constitution doesn't necessarily mean that they are recognized in society.

Polygamy and Incest are illegal in this country, which makes them ineligible to partake in the legal constructs formed for legal relationships.

You are simply not making sense.

If polygamy is onstitutionally protected, then there can be NO laws that discriminate against it. Be they marriage, or any other legal construct. They would be unconstitutional and stricken down, then any laws

See above. Most likely the polygamy laws will indeed be stricken from the records on that basis. The only legalities that I can see keeping polygamy off the books are the way in which our tax code and inheritance laws are setup. Not to mention marital rights. They would all have to be rewritten from the ground up.

There is a small but perceptible difference between the legal recognition of a union and the illegality of a sexual relationship.

Yes, there is. But if a sexual relationship is constitutionally protected, then it both cannot be illegal, and cannot be discriminated against wrt civil unions.

Not if that sexual union involves the non-consensual abuse of another being, as in the case of pedophilia and zoophilia. Polygamy, you would be correct in arguing that.

I never said that was the line of argumentation. States have been sued for the laws on the books which prevented gay men and women from entering into marriage. However in many cases they lost because it was successfully argued that their sexual relationships were illegal, thus they could not be conferred the status of marriage.

That doesn't mean that if the sexual relationship is legal, that the states must confer marital status. It just means a different case with a different argument.

Ultimately, a state can make whatever rules it wants to...so long as it's not unconstitutional.

And that is something that is in dispute in Mass and NJ. Well, other states as well, but those are the two states whose supreme courts should render judgements sometime soon on the constitutionality of DOMA laws.

He didn't stipulate that. He merely stated that the ability to raise children in a man/woman relationship is what is right.

That doesn't matter. Anyone can stipulate whatever moral they want to. John Smith can stipulate that "homsexuals raising kids is wrong because that's the way I feel."

Indeed, but I'm discussing making laws to enforce that bigotry. Some people feel that interracial couples getting married and raising kids is wrong because that's the way they feel. Should we re-institute Anti-Miscegenation laws because of their own personal morality? No. And to be sure, I know you're not stating that, but your line of argumentation could be used to support that claim, on a "slippery slope" as it were.

It's not a slippery slope at all. The slope ends where the legality of a sexual relationship is called into question.

No, it doesn't. The slope doesn't end becayse you are claiming constitutional protection of said relationship.

Not the relationship. Constitutional protection of the right to enter legal marriage. As I said before, there is a perceptible difference. Frankly I wish the Texas Supreme Court case had been fought with Equal Protection Clause rather than "Zone of Privacy." One could certainly be a "slippery slope" while the other is not.

If the sexual relationship is not illegal, then there is no legal reason to prevent people in that sexual relationship from entering into the legal construct of marriage.

Unless of course, "the people" just say they don't want it! That's my point. The only way the "will of the people" can be thwarted, is if it's unconstitutional.

And you are arguing that marriage constructs are something that's constitutionally protected by "equal protection."

And if that's the case, then Polygamy is protected, as is incest. There's no way around it. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

I agree that polygamy is something we as a nation will have to address. I don't believe there is any legal reason to ban it. Incest, however, doesn't have to be argued on the marital rights or the constitutionality of the sexual act as we are still dealing with a high proportional chance of known genetic defects. However, when we become technologically capable of keeping genetic defects out of children (probably in another 50-100 years) there will certainly be no legal reason to ban incest any further. But I've said this before.

I don't understand exactly what you're saying here.

I'm saying that the construct of marriage / civil unions does not include the concept of equal protection of everyone. If it was, polygamy and incest marriages would be constitutionally protected. If it is constitutionally OK to have laws against such marriages, it's constitutionally OK to have laws against homosexual marriages. The reason for barring polygamy and incest marriages are simply moral ones.

There are biological reasons for incest wrt genetic defects. Marriage in and of itself is not only a legal union but a sexual union as well. When the day comes that our technology reaches a point whereby genetic defects are no longer an issue, the legality of incest becomes moot.

Wrt to polygamy, there are certainly no legal reasons outside of our tax code, inheritance laws, and a few other ones, to ban it. But that is structural. Certainly morality is not in play here since one of the largest denominations of christianity supports polygamy, or at least they did up until a few decades ago. Not to mention Islam supports polygamy, as does hinduism I believe, though I may be wrong on that one.

Not to mention that Judaism is filled with instances of polygamy being blessed by god. Solomon had 700 wives and 500 concubines I believe, and he is considered to be one of Israel's greatest kings. So morality is something that is a little, uhm, floaty, shall we say?

What you can argue, is that my stance is a slippery slope for states not allowing things like interracial mariage.

??

Ok I'm definitely not understanding what you're saying.

I'm saying that there's nothing stopping me from taking my argumentation and saying "the state can make a law prohibiting read-heads from marrying blonds", if that's what the people want to do. That's the slippery slope that my point of view runs into.

Yours, is the opposite...that there's nothing we can do to prevent any kind of union we deem wrong...like incest or polygamy. They are OK by default.

See above.

I'm googling now to see if I can find the names of some cases.

OK.

Well as I was googling I lost power, so this will have to wait.

I remember reading about them a couple of years ago. Marriage in and of itself, as a legal construct, is not a sexual act. However, sexual acts implicitly occur within marriage. It was successfully argued that marriage/civil unions could not be legalized for gay couples because the sex itself was illegal.

Even if that's the case, that doesn't stop a different line of argumentation. The sex might be constitutionally protected (NOT by equal protection, but by "right to privacy"), but that doesn't mean the legally recognized relationship is.[/quote]

Which is one reason why I stated earlier that I wish the Texas Sodomy Case had been argued with Equal Protection rather than "right to privacy" because that could be used to justify many things. However, it isn't as much of a slippery slope as you think. For instance, you couldn't justify pedophilia due to child abuse laws, nor could you justify zoophilia. Incest, Polygamy, statutory rape, et al, are murkier however.

Holm was 32 when he allegedly took Stubbs as a "spiritual" wife, which is not a legal marriage. He has three wives and 21 children, according to prosecutors and his own attorney. Stubbs said she was Holm's third wife.

He's being prosecuted on bigamy and underage sex. Though I'm surprised they've charged him with bigamy since he married this girl spiritually, not through the state.

That's my point entirely. I don't see that charge holding up. As I said, if he actually "legally" married more than one person (two marriage certificates) It is certainly illegal.

He wasn't. Merely "spiritually" married. So again, I'm not sure how they're prosecuting him on bigamy charges. There might be some special by-law in Utah, due to the high incidence of mormonism in the state.

This is an instance where someone was married through their religion, which contradicts state law, and they are being prosecuted for it.

But not convicted. You can prosecute someone for anything.

Well, you can't prosecute someone for wearing a tie.

 

[Althornin]

I don't know what you mean. Why should I have the right to do what?

To imping upon someone elses happiness because you feel it is wrong.

That is clearly too black and white. I don't think a person's pursuit of happiness should be impinged upon becuase I think it's wrong either.

It's if the democratic majority thinks it's wrong. That's the issue here.

If a person's pursuit of happiness includes murduring or sexually abusing little kids...is it wrong to impinge on that?

I left a little trap for you - i knew you'd be unable to resist saying that. Too bad its a terribly flawed analogy. As long as thier happiness doesnt negatively affect anyone else...This has always been the way the "right to pursuit of happiness" has been interpreted. But thanks for trying to compare homosexuality/polygamy to pedophilia and murder. It makes your bias absolutely clear.

For the same reason that Democratic States have the right to decide other matters...because it's representative of the people.

Such as?

States are soverign. Different states have their own identities, and their own ability to "define themselves." What's good for NY isn't necessarily good for North Dakota. The federal government already is involved in way too many issues that should be controlled / decided on a local basis.

Ever heard of federal law?
You thinking there is too much of it is an OPINION.
Not fact. Leaving the decsion up to the states is stupid for a number of reasons, mostly similar to the reasons why leaving slavery up to the states was stupid. It created situations where a person was free/not free depending on where he was. So now what, you walk acrooss the state lines and your union becomes null and void? Thats retarded, and i think you know it.l

Gee, thanks! I was afraid that my ideas were based on someone else's bias.

Well, maybe if you spent less time rolling your eyes, and more time thinking about WHY you say what you do, you'd come to different conclusions. However, on these matters you seem to be like chalnoth.

 

[Natoma]

I left a little trap for you - i knew you'd be unable to resist saying that. Too bad its a terribly flawed analogy. As long as thier happiness doesnt negatively affect anyone else...This has always been the way the "right to pursuit of happiness" has been interpreted. But thanks for trying to compare homosexuality/polygamy to pedophilia and murder. It makes your bias absolutely clear.

Funny thing is, I'm surprised he brought that up to you considering I already took care of that issue when he brought it up to me long time ago in the dontamend thread. But oh wells.

For the same reason that Democratic States have the right to decide other matters...because it's representative of the people.

Such as?

States are soverign. Different states have their own identities, and their own ability to "define themselves." What's good for NY isn't necessarily good for North Dakota. The federal government already is involved in way too many issues that should be controlled / decided on a local basis.

Ever heard of federal law?
You thinking there is too much of it is an OPINION.
Not fact. Leaving the decsion up to the states is stupid for a number of reasons, mostly similar to the reasons why leaving slavery up to the states was stupid. It created situations where a person was free/not free depending on where he was. So now what, you walk acrooss the state lines and your union becomes null and void? Thats retarded, and i think you know it.l

Agreed.

Gee, thanks! I was afraid that my ideas were based on someone else's bias.

Well, maybe if you spent less time rolling your eyes, and more time thinking about WHY you say what you do, you'd come to different conclusions. However, on these matters you seem to be like chalnoth.

I wouldn't go that far. Chalnoth might have a logical financial stake to justify his nvidia bias. Be fair to Chalnoth.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

If I purchase goods from New Jersey while I'm in New York, New Jersey's sales tax gets applied.

Nope. You will only get NJ sales tax applied if the point of sale is made in NJ.

Then why can't homosexuals get legally married? The constitution trumps all other laws.

Blacks were constitutionally allowed to vote in the 1860s after the passage of the 15th amendment, so why is it that southern states still passed laws prohibiting them from voting?

Any such laws would be illegal.

Just because protections and rights are in the constitution doesn't necessarily mean that they are recognized in society.

True (as I tried to tell you many times...law does not create society recognition. Law is a reflection of society.) That doesn't mean they are legal, and would be overturned by any law-suit.

See above. Most likely the polygamy laws will indeed be stricken from the records on that basis.

I highly doubt that laws against polygamy will ever be stricken down as constitutionally protected.

The only legalities that I can see keeping polygamy off the books are the way in which our tax code and inheritance laws are setup. Not to mention marital rights. They would all have to be rewritten from the ground up.

You keep on approaching this from the wrong side. Unconstitutional Laws are not "kept on the books" because of technicalities. An unconstitutional law is striken down, and any technical fall-out must then be dealt with.

That doesn't matter. Anyone can stipulate whatever moral they want to. John Smith can stipulate that "homsexuals raising kids is wrong because that's the way I feel."

Indeed, but I'm discussing making laws to enforce that bigotry. Some people feel that interracial couples getting married and raising kids is wrong because that's the way they feel. Should we re-institute Anti-Miscegenation laws because of their own personal morality? No. And to be sure, I know you're not stating that, but your line of argumentation could be used to support that claim, on a "slippery slope" as it were.

Um, this is exactly what I told you earlier. That is indeed the slippery slope that I'm on.

Now all you have to do is recognize your own slipperly slope. That is, constitutional protection of "any" kind of civil union...polygamy, incest, etc.

Not the relationship. Constitutional protection of the right to enter legal marriage.

Right. You are saying there is some constitutional protection, based on "equal protection" to enter into marriage? That is a slippery slope for allowing any type of marriage.

I agree that polygamy is something we as a nation will have to address. I don't believe there is any legal reason to ban it.

I believe there is "legal reason" to ban polygamy as much as there is legal reason to do anything: because enough people think it's "wrong."

Incest, however, doesn't have to be argued on the marital rights or the constitutionality of the sexual act as we are still dealing with a high proportional chance of known genetic defects.

Please, don't go down this road again.

There's nothing in the constitution that says "equal protection...unless there is a high chance of X-Y-Z happening."

It's either constitutionally protected, or it isn't.

However, when we become technologically capable of keeping genetic defects out of

There are biological reasons for incest wrt genetic defects.

Natoma, "bilogical" reasons have nothing to do with constitutional protection. It just doesn't. Biological reasons can be given as some "argument" for laws against incest.

Wrt to polygamy, there are certainly no legal reasons outside of our tax code, inheritance laws, and a few other ones, to ban it.

You're talking in circles.

There are no "legal" reasons to do any thing. Legality is the result of the reasoning behind the law. No one sat down and said: "Hey, the tax code would be an order of magnitude more complex if we recognize polygamy, therefore, we won't do it."

We sat down and said:

1) "We want to recognize monogamouse realationships."
2) Tax code is built around that recognition.

Certainly morality is not in play here since one of the largest denominations of christianity supports polygamy, or at least they did up until a few decades ago.

Of course morality is in play.

Not to mention that Judaism is filled with instances of polygamy being blessed by god. Solomon had 700 wives and 500 concubines I believe, and he is considered to be one of Israel's greatest kings. So morality is something that is a little, uhm, floaty, shall we say?

Not at all.

See above.

No, you see above. You have not explained how your stance is not a slippery slope for allowing constitutional protection of any and all marriages.

Biology, etc, is not a factor. Something either is protected or it isn't.

Which is one reason why I stated earlier that I wish the Texas Sodomy Case had been argued with Equal Protection rather than "right to privacy"

Actually, that's what Russ (or DemoCoder?) and I was saying would have been better for the homosexual cause. I believe you started the inital thread by trumpeting equal protection, even though it had nothing to do with the case.

He wasn't. Merely "spiritually" married. So again, I'm not sure how they're prosecuting him on bigamy charges.

OK, now we're going in circles again. I'm the one who claimed polygamous relationships are not illegal. (Having multiple legal marriage licenses can is.) And you keep on backing me up.

Well, you can't prosecute someone for wearing a tie.

Actually, you can! (Or a shirt, if it's offensive enough in a public school...)

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I left a little trap for you - i knew you'd be unable to resist saying that. Too bad its a terribly flawed analogy.

Too bad you didn't lay a better trap.

As long as thier happiness doesnt negatively affect anyone else...

And who says it doesn't negatively effect anyone else? That's the point. The "moral argument" against things like homosexuality is that it is a negative overall effect on society. Agree or disagree with that argument of course.

It's the same reason illegal drugs are well, illegal. The same reason why gambling is tightly controlled. These things are viewed as a negative impact on society as a whole.

This has always been the way the "right to pursuit of happiness" has been interpreted. But thanks for trying to compare homosexuality/polygamy to pedophilia and murder. It makes your bias absolutely clear.

I'll make it clearer for you.

I think homosexuality is wrong. Is that better for you? I keep being amuse by you and Natoma who think I have some "hidden" agenda. When has my opinion on homosexuality ever been hidden?

Ever heard of federal law?

Yup. And there's far too much of it. That's the problem. And what's your point?

You thinking there is too much of it is an OPINION.

Which also happens to be the opinion of the founding fathers, and the basis for our government. The whole concept of state sovreignity, and limited federal government.

Leaving the decsion up to the states is stupid for a number of reasons....

Not as stupid as having everyone in this country suject to the same set of rules, regardless of local morality, or relevance to the community. I see you are a proponent of socialism, vs. individual liberty. That's fine, as long as you can just admit that, rather than pretend you are for the opposite.

So now what, you walk acrooss the state lines and your union becomes null and void? Thats retarded, and i think you know it.

Actaully, it's not retarded. This is exactly the type of situation the founding fathers envisioned. Each state having it's own value system works as a check and balance. If one state becomes overly oppressive, people will LEAVE and go to states where there is more freedom. Generally, states COMPETE for you.

Well, maybe if you spent less time rolling your eyes, and more time thinking about WHY you say what you do, you'd come to different conclusions. However, on these matters you seem to be like chalnoth.

What does nVidia have to do with this?

 

[Natoma]

If I purchase goods from New Jersey while I'm in New York, New Jersey's sales tax gets applied.

Nope. You will only get NJ sales tax applied if the point of sale is made in NJ.

And what part of "if I purchase goods from New Jersey" does not cover point of sale made in NJ? C'mon this is splitting hairs just to make a point and be "right". Enough already.

Then why can't homosexuals get legally married? The constitution trumps all other laws.

Blacks were constitutionally allowed to vote in the 1860s after the passage of the 15th amendment, so why is it that southern states still passed laws prohibiting them from voting?

Any such laws would be illegal.

Indeed they were illegal. And yet they were still on the books and enforced. Much in the same way DOMA is enforced today. I believe DOMA is unconstitutional, and most believe the Supreme Courts of Mass and NJ will agree soon.

Just because protections and rights are in the constitution doesn't necessarily mean that they are recognized in society.

True (as I tried to tell you many times...law does not create society recognition. Law is a reflection of society.) That doesn't mean they are legal, and would be overturned by any law-suit.

Law is not necessarily a reflection of society either, as evidenced by the 15th amendment not being enforced for 100 years until the Voting Rights Act of 1965

See above. Most likely the polygamy laws will indeed be stricken from the records on that basis.

I highly doubt that laws against polygamy will ever be stricken down as constitutionally protected.

Heh. I'm sure you could have said the same 5 years ago wrt Sodomy laws either. Time will tell I suppose.

The only legalities that I can see keeping polygamy off the books are the way in which our tax code and inheritance laws are setup. Not to mention marital rights. They would all have to be rewritten from the ground up.

You keep on approaching this from the wrong side. Unconstitutional Laws are not "kept on the books" because of technicalities. An unconstitutional law is striken down, and any technical fall-out must then be dealt with.

Actually, laws were created during slavery that made a black man 1/4 to a white man. One of the bases of the laws that denied blacks the right to vote was that law in particular. It was most certainly a technicality of law that completely interfered with the 15th amendment.

That doesn't matter. Anyone can stipulate whatever moral they want to. John Smith can stipulate that "homsexuals raising kids is wrong because that's the way I feel."

Indeed, but I'm discussing making laws to enforce that bigotry. Some people feel that interracial couples getting married and raising kids is wrong because that's the way they feel. Should we re-institute Anti-Miscegenation laws because of their own personal morality? No. And to be sure, I know you're not stating that, but your line of argumentation could be used to support that claim, on a "slippery slope" as it were.

Um, this is exactly what I told you earlier. That is indeed the slippery slope that I'm on.

Now all you have to do is recognize your own slipperly slope. That is, constitutional protection of "any" kind of civil union...polygamy, incest, etc.

As I said before, not "any" kind of civil union. You can't get a civil union for pedophilia or zoophilia. Polygamy yes. Incest maybe. The basis for a civil union cannot be a sexual union that is abusive of another being, which would automatically rule out pedophilia and zoophilia, and other relationships as well.

Not the relationship. Constitutional protection of the right to enter legal marriage.

Right. You are saying there is some constitutional protection, based on "equal protection" to enter into marriage? That is a slippery slope for allowing any type of marriage.

Nope. See above.

I agree that polygamy is something we as a nation will have to address. I don't believe there is any legal reason to ban it.

I believe there is "legal reason" to ban polygamy as much as there is legal reason to do anything: because enough people think it's "wrong."

You disproved your own line of argumentation here wrt enough people thinking it "wrong," so they banned interracial marriage. Why do you keep pushing it?

That is certainly not a good reason. You have to have legal, logical reasons to outlaw something. Thinking that something is "wrong" is most certainly not legal or logical.

Incest, however, doesn't have to be argued on the marital rights or the constitutionality of the sexual act as we are still dealing with a high proportional chance of known genetic defects.

Please, don't go down this road again.

There's nothing in the constitution that says "equal protection...unless there is a high chance of X-Y-Z happening."

It's either constitutionally protected, or it isn't.

Incest is outlawed currently because of the rights of the unborn to not be born with genetic defects. It's the same laws that are used to prosecute Scott Peterson wrt killing his unborn child by murdering his wife. Granted it's supremely hypocritical wrt Abortion.

That is the logical reason why incest is illegal. Frankly though, that's a slippery slope in and of itself, because when we do become technologically capable of managing genetic defects, it could easily be argued that not doing anything and everything to prevent genetic defects should be grounds for jail time and or state forced abortion.

Ever see Gattaca?

There are biological reasons for incest wrt genetic defects.

Natoma, "bilogical" reasons have nothing to do with constitutional protection. It just doesn't. Biological reasons can be given as some "argument" for laws against incest.

I'm assuming you mean homosexuality. But if you go down that route, then you'd have to outlaw seniors and the infertile from marrying. So you can't use that. However, I addressed the problems with biological reasons above anyways.

Wrt to polygamy, there are certainly no legal reasons outside of our tax code, inheritance laws, and a few other ones, to ban it.

You're talking in circles.

There are no "legal" reasons to do any thing. Legality is the result of the reasoning behind the law. No one sat down and said: "Hey, the tax code would be an order of magnitude more complex if we recognize polygamy, therefore, we won't do it."

We sat down and said:

1) "We want to recognize monogamouse realationships."
2) Tax code is built around that recognition.

Polygamy was only outlawed in the last 20 years of the 19th century I believe, and one of the reasons was tax and inheritance issues. The other was the Puritanical objection to polygamy, which Mormonism fully and completely embraced.

Could the laws be stricken down as unconstitutional because they enforced a Puritanical religious viewpoint upon Mormons through the law? Possibly, as I said before.

Not to mention that Judaism is filled with instances of polygamy being blessed by god. Solomon had 700 wives and 500 concubines I believe, and he is considered to be one of Israel's greatest kings. So morality is something that is a little, uhm, floaty, shall we say?

Not at all.

So how do you address all of these religions supporting polygamy? Hell, even the religion that your faith was built upon? Obviously morality is a floating issue.

Which is one reason why I stated earlier that I wish the Texas Sodomy Case had been argued with Equal Protection rather than "right to privacy"

Actually, that's what Russ (or DemoCoder?) and I was saying would have been better for the homosexual cause. I believe you started the inital thread by trumpeting equal protection, even though it had nothing to do with the case.

The article that I quoted stated in the header that Equal Protection was the reason for striking down the Sodomy Laws. That is where I was mistaken. After realizing that the laws were stricken because of "Right to Privacy" I stated my opinion that I believed they should have been stricken with Equal Protection, which is much less murky and more legally sound than "Right to Privacy."

He wasn't. Merely "spiritually" married. So again, I'm not sure how they're prosecuting him on bigamy charges.

OK, now we're going in circles again. I'm the one who claimed polygamous relationships are not illegal. (Having multiple legal marriage licenses can is.) And you keep on backing me up.

Uhm, I'm the one who stated that I was surprised they brought up the bigamy charge against him in the first place since he was "spiritually" married and not legally married. Hello I linked to the article.

But yes, I do agree with you. Is that so hard to fathom?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

And what part of "if I purchase goods from New Jersey" does not cover point of sale made in NJ?

You said from NJ, not in NJ.

Pull up any on-line vendor that does not have a presense in NY State. You will not get charged sales tax from the state where the vendor does have a presense.

C'mon this is splitting hairs just to make a point and be "right". Enough already.

Correct. I'm right and you're wrong...moving on!

Indeed they were illegal. And yet they were still on the books and enforced.

And that's not the point. The point is, having a "law" against something like incestual marriage, doesn't give it protection from the consitution.

Much in the same way DOMA is enforced today. I believe DOMA is unconstitutional, and most believe the Supreme Courts of Mass and NJ will agree soon.

Sure, anything's possible.

Law is not necessarily a reflection of society either, as evidenced by the 15th amendment not being enforced for 100 years until the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Wrong. The constitution is not necessarily a reflection of society. As evidenced by the 15th amendment not being enforced for 100 years...

All those LAWS that you previously mentioned that were illegally on the books....they WERE a reflection of society. Thanks for proving my case.

As I said before, not "any" kind of civil union. You can't get a civil union for pedophilia or zoophilia. Polygamy yes. Incest maybe.

The point is, you are already carving out these "exceptions" and "possible" exceptions for constitutional protection of certain civil unions. And yet, you claim homosexual unions is immune to being such an exception.

MY point is this: if one can make a case for one particular type of union being "not" constitutionally protected, one can make a case for homosexuality "not" being constitutionally protected. It doesn't have to be the SAME reason of course.

We can argue all day about whether or not any given reason is "valid" or not in your opinion. That's not the point.

That's really all I'm trying to get at. So I'll cut this short and maybe just let that sink in.

[

 

[Natoma]

And what part of "if I purchase goods from New Jersey" does not cover point of sale made in NJ?

You said from NJ, not in NJ.

Pull up any on-line vendor that does not have a presense in NY State. You will not get charged sales tax from the state where the vendor does have a presense.

How can a store not have a presence in New Jersey if I'm purchasing the product from that store in New Jersey while I'm sitting at home in New York? Again, you're splitting hairs and it's ridiculous. Moving on.

Indeed they were illegal. And yet they were still on the books and enforced.

And that's not the point. The point is, having a "law" against something like incestual marriage, doesn't give it protection from the consitution.

:?

What is the point of this statement? I said that the constitutionality of a law hasn't in the past made a difference whether or not that law was enforced. So why are you making this statement about having a law not protecting it from the Constitution? That's exactly what I said, and we are in agreement.

Law is not necessarily a reflection of society either, as evidenced by the 15th amendment not being enforced for 100 years until the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Wrong. The constitution is not necessarily a reflection of society. As evidenced by the 15th amendment not being enforced for 100 years...

All those LAWS that you previously mentioned that were illegally on the books....they WERE a reflection of society. Thanks for proving my case.

So the constitution is not law? Yea......

As I said before, not "any" kind of civil union. You can't get a civil union for pedophilia or zoophilia. Polygamy yes. Incest maybe.

The point is, you are already carving out these "exceptions" and "possible" exceptions for constitutional protection of certain civil unions. And yet, you claim homosexual unions is immune to being such an exception.

MY point is this: if one can make a case for one particular type of union being "not" constitutionally protected, one can make a case for homosexuality "not" being constitutionally protected. It doesn't have to be the SAME reason of course.

We can argue all day about whether or not any given reason is "valid" or not in your opinion. That's not the point.

That's really all I'm trying to get at. So I'll cut this short and maybe just let that sink in.

What don't you understand about unions that involve sexual abuse of another being not being protected by equal protection? How that is some "special" case or "exception" for pedophilia or beastiality is something only you're aware of. Everyone has the right to the pursuit of happiness, liberty, and justice. If your being is raped or molested non-consensually (as in the case of pedophilia), or it cannot be determined (as in the case of beastiality), then that is a violation of your constitutional rights and should be illegal.

Polygamy should certainly not be illegal. But pedophilia and beastiality do not have that same claim to legality. There is absolutely no legal or logical case to be made against homosexuality. Strip everything away and all you've got is your opinion, nothing more, nothing less. No logic. No reason. That is not enough to build a law upon in my opinion.

Maybe you should let that particular bit sink in and understand that your particular morality has no logical basis, as I've shown on multiple occassions. You say that I think there's some hidden agenda. Frankly the only hiding I see from you is your personal bigotry against homosexuality, as you've stated, but you try to hide it behind some pseudo-logic and make it appear legitimate. It's so transparent.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

How can a store not have a presence in New Jersey if I'm purchasing the product from that store in New Jersey while I'm sitting at home in New York?

Um....the store does have a presence in NJ. The point is, in that situation....you are not charged sales tax from either NY or NJ.

I said that the constitutionality of a law hasn't in the past made a difference whether or not that law was enforced.

Until that law is challenged by someone in court.

So why are you making this statement about having a law not protecting it from the Constitution? That's exactly what I said, and we are in agreement.

We are?

OK. Then you agree that the fact that a law exists (like those against polygamy, incest...) has no bearing on any constitutional argument for its existence.

So the constitution is not law? Yea......

The constitution puts LIMITS on what laws can be enacted. The constitution is "anti-law" if you will. I thought this was common knowledge?

What don't you understand about unions that involve sexual abuse of another being not being protected by equal protection?

I understand that completely.

How that is some "special" case or "exception" for pedophilia or beastiality is something only you're aware of.

Where have I ever mentioned beastiality...as I don't recall any constitutional protection for animals rights. Pedophilia is indeed a special case. A 14 year old may not be able to marry someone, even if he/she declares unconditional love, appears sincere, etc. There does NOT have to be any abuse at all in a technical "peodphilia" case. It can all be consensual.

And yet, we as a society believe that's "not right" for whatever reason. And we as a society reject unions at too early an age. The point is, there is personal judgement involved in what is right and what is wrong.

Everyone has the right to the pursuit of happiness, liberty, and justice.

Just not the 14 year old...right? Just not the brother and sister who want to marry?

If your being is raped or molested non-consensually (as in the case of pedophilia), or it cannot be determined (as in the case of beastiality), then that is a violation of your constitutional rights and should be illegal.

I'm not talking about abuse or molestation. I'm talking about two individuals who declare their love for one another and want to be married.

Polygamy should certainly not be illegal.

There is absolutely no legal or logical case to be made against homosexuality.

Who said morality has to have "logic?" That's your basic problem, Natoma. Morality, right and wrong, are a combination of inherent instincts and evironmental teachings.

It's logical to me to see homsexuality as wrong. See past discussions on bilogical dead-ends.

Strip everything away and all you've got is your opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

And the point is, Natoma, as I've been trying to explain to you for eons now....it doesn't matter if you believe all I've got is an opinion. If enough people share that opinion, just like enough people may share the opinion that polygamy is wrong or incest is wrong, that's what matters.

No logic. No reason. That is not enough to build a law upon in my opinion.

The thing is, what is perfectly logical to someone, is not perfectly logical to you.

Maybe you should let that particular bit sink in and understand that your particular morality has no logical basis, as I've shown on multiple occassions.

You mean, how I've shown how your particualr morality has no logical and consistent basis? Hey...incestual couples might have kids with deformities...but so might older couples, or individuals who are known carriers of genetic traits, etc.

Yet I seem to recall that incestual marriage isn't OK on that basis...yet I don't hear you calling for other high risk couples to step down from the marital post.

In the end, Natoma, YOUR belief system is no less "pseudo-logic" than my own. The difference between us is, I respect your opinion.

You say that I think there's some hidden agenda.

No, you keep on telling me I hav some hidden agenda.

Frankly the only hiding I see from you is your personal bigotry against homosexuality,

Again, I think homosexuality is wrong. No hiding from it.

..as you've stated, but you try to hide it behind some pseudo-logic and make it appear legitimate. It's so transparent.

Lol....back to the old intolerance trip again? Talk about transparent. I once asked you what would be a "legitimate" basis for being anti-homosexual.

I believe you answered "religion."

And yet, religion, as we know, is faith based, and not necessarily logic based. Faith can be classified as "pseudologic".

And still you have some issue with my own basis. I believe it's perfectly logical. You believe it's "pseudologic." Regardless, it's no different than anyone's "religions" moral system telling them it's wrong.

Your problem, as I've stated mant times, is one of tolerance.

 

[diarrhea_splatter]

Yes, so we pretty much feel the same way on this, with one possible cavaet:

To receive federal rights and privileges currently accorded marriage, one would need to enter into a Civil Union, or whatever people want to call it. This way gay and straight couples would be able to receive federal benefits and rights, but it would be left to each individual religion whether or not to perform marital rites.

What you haven't addressed, is whether or not you think the state should be able to legislate for or against homosexual civil unions. Just separating "marriage" from legal government recognition, doesn't address the fundamental question of whether or not states should be able to create a law that denies homosexual couples the benefits / rights of whatever civil unions the state declares as acceptable.

You know what's a shame? Who really give's a shit? There should be no government telling you who you can or can't marry. I don't agree with gay marriages, but hey, what if gay people don't agree with straight marriage? We're all son's of bitches if you ask me.