major blow to heterophobes

[mawilson 2,133]

The clear majority of people in the world also have a natural repulsion about Homosexuality, are you suggesting that most people in the world and throughout modern world history are or have been afflicted with a phobia?

Yes, people dislike [or are afraid of] what they don't understand.

Where did you get that completely distorted view of homosexual relationships?

Explains why he's so homophobic, doesn't it?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No, I didn't assume they were all equivalent. They are simply all typically seen as wrong by traditional morality. Why aren't they workable under the system of laws we currently have?

I'm still waiting for a rebuttal.

You're asking for a rebuttal to a patently ridiculous argument.

It's not only a matter of morality - although it is (can animals and children provide "consent" such as the law currently requires it, do animals have the same rights as people?), but of practicality.

Does it occur to you, for instance, how practically difficult it would be to redefine marriage in such a way that multiple partners could be included (and included in a way that doesn't contravene existing sexual discrimination laws)?

If you really want to explore this, its going to dilute the topic in such a way as to make it nonsensical.

[SMR 368]

You're asking for a rebuttal to a patently ridiculous argument.

It's not only a matter of morality - although it is (can animals and children provide "consent" such as the law currently requires it, do animals have the same rights as people?), but of practicality.

Does it occur to you, for instance, how practically difficult it would be to redefine marriage in such a way that multiple partners could be included (and included in a way that doesn't contravene existing sexual discrimination laws)?

If you really want to explore this, its going to dilute the topic in such a way as to make it nonsensical.

Incest doesn't require that either partner be a minor. Assume everyone is an adult. Although animals can't give consent, they also can't really be raped.

The only difficulty I see with polygamy is that tax laws and insurance companies would have to redefine their systems. But the IRS could just require that anyone married to more than one person file separately. Insurance companies could deal however they want to. I don't think that is an issue.

In any case, you are avoiding the question. I can similarly describe procedural roadblocks to gay marriage. None of them are too complicated, but complicated is subjective. The system could be redesigned to accommodate anything you want it to. The question is, how could you refuse to accommodate any of these things, once you accommodate gay marriage?

Edited March 4, 2010 by SMR

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Incest doesn't require that either partner be a minor. Assume everyone is an adult. Although animals can't give consent, they also can't really be raped.

The only difficulty I see with polygamy is that tax laws and insurance companies would have to redefine their systems. But the IRS could just require that anyone married to more than one person file separately. Insurance companies could deal however they want to. I don't think that is an issue.

In any case, you are avoiding the question. I can similarly describe procedural roadblocks to gay marriage. None of them are too complicated, but complicated is subjective. The system could be redesigned to accommodate anything you want it to. The question is, how could you refuse to accommodate any of these things, once you accommodate gay marriage?

Because gay marriage requires a tweaking of the law. The other things require a wholesale dismantling, not only of the law but of the entire concept of marriage as a legal partnership.

But seriously, the further we go on this tangent the more ridiculous this gets. It's about the same as me saying that people who support the right to bear arms are hypocrites because they won't support my interpretation that I be allowed to own rocket launchers and nuclear bombs.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Gene Hunt

[Danno 1,228]

There's no legal tradition of defining marriage as 'between a man and a woman' in the US. The first such legal definition was passed less than 4 decades ago. Not sure that makes a strong case for the 'tradition' argument when it comes to civil marriage.

Did you really say "legal tradition"?

Is there no limit to the wiggling you will do to try to find ground to stand on?

... oh and the point that no "legal" definition existed before 4 decades ago highlights the fact it was in its self a definition.

But as usual your 4 decades fable does not stand up to even basic logic.

More than 4 decades ago every marriage license had a place for bride and groom.

That in its self is a legal document and clearly denoted only one man and one woman.

If you have a serious case.... bring-it.

These type things workout real cool in Gay support ...where no one thinks past emotion but in the real world these silly points are easily torn apart.

Humans are social animals - all relationships are "natural".

What exactly are "crimes against nature"?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Did you really say "legal tradition"?

Is there no limit to the wiggling you will do to try to find ground to stand on?

... oh and the point that no "legal" definition existed before 4 decades ago highlights the fact it was in its self a definition.

But as usual your 4 decades fable does not stand up to even basic logic.

More than 4 decades ago every marriage license had a place for bride and groom.

That in its self is a legal document and clearly denoted only one man and one woman.

Civil marriage is a legal contract, I'm sure you are aware of that. It's therefore not really any wiggling to point to the fact that no legal definition of marriage as only 'between a man and a woman' existed until Maryland first adopted such language in 1973.

As to your argument that the fact that a bride and groom where to be listed on a marriage license prior to that creates the case that marriage has therefore already been legally defined as only 'between a man and a woman' holds no water. If that was so, then what was the need to change the civil code in all these states starting in 1973 and what's the use of DOMA? All of that would, according to your argument, be redundant.

And it took you all this time to think that little gem up?

Edited March 4, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[Danno 1,228]

Civil marriage is a legal contract, I'm sure you are aware of that. It's therefore not really any wiggling to point to the fact that no legal definition of marriage as only 'between a man and a woman' existed until Maryland first adopted such language in 1973.

As to your argument that the fact that a bride and groom where to be listed on a marriage license prior to that creates the case that marriage has therefore already been legally defined as only 'between a man and a woman' holds no water. If that was so, then what was the need to change the civil code in all these states starting in 1973 and what's the use of DOMA? All of that would, according to your argument, be redundant.

And it took you all this time to think that little gem up?

You pretended there were no legal precedent that a marriage was only between a man and a woman before 1973.

You are now confusing State level Statues with Marriage certificates.

Do you really think your line of reasoning that : People everywhere and at every level were unsure what that a marriage included one man and one woman?

This argument is so weak if one had the energy he could easily produce Bigamy statues which would no doubt put this silliness to rest.

However is so lame to pretend the term "marriage" was somehow a definition within it's self it';s not worth the effort.

[Peikko 1,575]

Are you this incoherent in real life Danno?

[mawilson 2,133]

Bigamy statues

I do have a bigamy statue on my desk - how did you know?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I do have a bigamy statue on my desk - how did you know?

[justashooter 430]

We're talking about what is Constitutionally protected. The right to marry is not constitutionally protected. Restrictions based on age would be Constitutionally fine. The issue with race is that race is a subjective and malleable concept. There is no way to objectively prove what race someone belongs to and definitions of race could be redefined without cause or proof.

you're wrong on that one. just because a right is not enumerated, tht does not mean it does not exist and is not protected by the constitution. slaughterhouse makes establishment of an un-enumerated right difficult to incorporate, but it does not refute the concept. slaughterhouse was bad law, anyway, and should go, taking cruishank and presser with it.

unfortunately, the current court is not willing to sacrifice slaughterhouse, as demonstrated in the oral arguments of this past tuesday in the mcdonald case. this is in direct contradiction to comments made in heller, but understandable, as scotus does not want to topple the pile of case law that is based on slaughterhouse and it's practical nullification of the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment.

a shame that slaughterhouse was heard at all. the adoption of the 14th included the P&I clause for a reason, and it should not have been sacrificed in the interest of public sanitation in 1873. incorporation of un-enumerated rights is made more difficult by the acceptance of slaughterhouse. the due process clause we are now left with makes all rights subject to the states, under some level of scrutiny.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

you're wrong on that one. just because a right is not enumerated, tht does not mean it does not exist and is not protected by the constitution. slaughterhouse makes establishment of an un-enumerated right difficult to incorporate, but it does not refute the concept. slaughterhouse was bad law, anyway, and should go, taking cruishank and presser with it.

unfortunately, the current court is not willing to sacrifice slaughterhouse, as demonstrated in the oral arguments of this past tuesday in the mcdonald case. this is in direct contradiction to comments made in heller, but understandable, as scotus does not want to topple the pile of case law that is based on slaughterhouse and it's practical nullification of the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment.

a shame that slaughterhouse was heard at all. the adoption of the 14th included the P&I clause for a reason, and it should not have been sacrificed in the interest of public sanitation in 1873. incorporation of un-enumerated rights is made more difficult by the acceptance of slaughterhouse. the due process clause we are now left with makes all rights subject to the states, under some level of scrutiny.

While the Court may interpret a "right" to marry under the US Constitution, the states are still allowed to regulate it in a way that places various limitations on whom may marry, how and when. In the state where I live, common law marriage is recognized, but there are few states that allow that. There are age limits that vary from state to state and by gender, some requiring parental permission for minors, some not.

So, the semantics of a right do not match the reality of a right. The best evidence of this is that gay marriage is required to be tried in court, voted upon in popular elections, and by legislative bodies. If marriage was a right, it would be a right no matter what, with consent of the parties involved, and not limited to two people of any gender.

All this is being done because the "right" to marry is still debatable, and therefore, mallable in applicable law.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

U.S. Supreme Court

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)

Bowers v. Hardwick

No. 85-140

Argued March 31, 1986

Decided June 30, 1986

478 U.S. 186

Syllabus

After being charged with violating the Georgia statute criminalizing sodomy by committing that act with another adult male in the bedroom of his home, respondent Hardwick (respondent) brought suit in Federal District Court, challenging the constitutionality of the statute insofar as it criminalized consensual sodomy. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the Georgia statute violated respondent's fundamental rights.

Held: The Georgia statute is constitutional. Pp. 478 U. S. 190-196.

(a) The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. None of the fundamental rights announced in this Court's prior cases involving family relationships, marriage, or procreation bear any resemblance to the right asserted in this case. And any claim that those cases stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable. Pp. 478 U. S. 190-191.

(b) Against a background in which many States have criminalized sodomy and still do, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" is, at best, facetious. Pp. 478 U. S. 191-194.

© There should be great resistance to expand the reach of the Due Process Clauses to cover new fundamental rights. Otherwise, the Judiciary necessarily would take upon itself further authority to govern the country without constitutional authority. The claimed right in this case falls far short of overcoming this resistance. Pp. 478 U. S. 194-195.

(d) The fact that homosexual conduct occurs in the privacy of the home does not affect the result. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557, distinguished. Pp. 478 U. S. 195-196.

(e) Sodomy laws should not be invalidated on the asserted basis that majority belief that sodomy is immoral is an inadequate rationale to support the laws. P. 478 U. S. 196.

760 F.2d 1202, reversed.

Page 478 U. S. 187

Source: http://supreme.justia.com/us/478/186/index.html

This is currently precedent.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Sodomy laws should not be invalidated on the asserted basis that majority belief that sodomy is immoral is an inadequate rationale to support the laws

This statement refers to morality, and that morality asserted against sodomy is from religion. Claims that law is apart from religion in the US are false.