| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
08 Sep 2005 09:19:14 AM |
| Object: |
California And Gay Marriage |
http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/sept/article102.html
California And Gay Marriage
By Nicholas Olson
Sept. 7, 2005
It was announced today that California is sending a bill to the governor
approving the rights of gays to marry. I say hurray for ending another form
of discrimination.
Republicans and their bible-thumping constituents can hem and haw all they
want about their sanctity and that it is against the nature of humanity and
whatever. All I have to say is that I am sick to my stomach that this form
of discrimination is even up for debate.
The stupidest argument I have heard in this whole ordeal is the one where
they have men and women marrying their pets. Let's be logical about this.
If a man wants to marry a woman, he needs her consent, at least in this
country. Since when does your dog ask you to marry it? I can see it now. It
gets down on one knee and pulls out this ring... Wait, that never happened.
The next argument is about sanctity. You know, when two heterosexual people
divorce at over 60 percent of all marriages and infidelity runs rampant and
don't get me started on alimony. Besides, if you want to get married in
this country, shouldn't gays have the same right to be as happy and
miserable as a hetero couple?
The most controversial reason why I am happy about this decision is because
it opens the door for the secular part of our culture to go for the jugular
of the religious right. You see, if you want to call marriage a religious
ceremony or a representation of their love before a spiritual being, then I
can go to the words of James Madison where he specifically noted that there
is a distinct separation of church and state. If religious people want to
keep their precious word "marriage," then they can do without the rights
afforded by our government to married people by having an equitable
separation of this right for all citizens. This would mean that you could
be married but get no benefit by it. After all, if it only matters in the
eyes of God that you are married then be married with no benefits.
Anti-homosexual sentiment is born out of need to discriminate against
something. At once mixed race marriage was looked down upon, so will we
adapt to gay marriage.
Americans are going to have to start realizing that change is going to come
in the form of the future youth, those that feel that the current adults
are messing things up, will not tolerate the indignities of the past. It
happened in the 1860s, it happened in the 1960s and it will happen in the
not-so-distant future. Learn to deal. California is on their way. Why not
in your state?
------------
About the author: Nicholas Olson is a long-time journalist who has been a
columnist at his college newspaper and is currently a military journalist.
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
13 Sep 2005 04:22:05 AM |
|
|
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:l9kci1tsfsok7m5rh7bpo7ehj8tj64ljao@4ax.com...
Gary Eickmeier <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> said:
<...>
I think I see the problem here. You are thinking I am saying that some
HARM will come to children raised by non-biological parents, like they
will beat them or something. No, I am saying that just the fact of their
being born not knowing who their parents are could be undesirable,
<...>
Why?
You know what, it's not ideal (my bmom refuses to ID my bdad), but it sure
as HELL isn't the end of the world either. People are stronger than Gary
seems to think they are. He really needs to look outside of his own narrow
perspective.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
12 Sep 2005 09:05:09 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Michael Altarriba wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
My main point is that this may matter a great deal to a human being,
helping
to define who he or she is.
Yes, it may. And? You see this as being sufficient reason for denying
the institution of marriage to same-sex couples? I don't.
Yes.
Therefore, if you consider the needs of the children involved, gay
marriage should not be allowed to happen.
The missing piece of your argument is when you defend your assertion
that the fact that those same-sex couples who choose to raise children,
and who will do so via adoption, surrogacy, artificial insemination,
etc., will therefore result in children being harmed in some way.
I think I see the problem here. You are thinking I am saying that some
HARM will come to children raised by non-biological parents, like they
will beat them or something. No, I am saying that just the fact of their
being born not knowing who their parents are could be undesirable,
especially if you PLAN on such a situation or system.
How about if we plan on allowing the children that are being raised by
nonbiological parents to be allowed to know who their biological parents
are?
It sounds like you're misplacing your focus. You are looking to reform
the adoption process, not same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is a
red-herring.
You haven't given me convincing reasoning, let alone evidence, to
support this assertion.
Also, your objection to same-sex marriage should, if you are being
consistent, also apply to mixed-sex marrage where the couple can't or
choose not to raise their own biological children. Would you outlaw
marriage in these cases, given that you have an equivalent situation to
that you object to with same-sex marriage?
Also, if same-sex marriage were made legal tomorrow (as it has been in
Massachussets, Canada, Spain, and elsewhere), do you really expect to
see a flood of children being produced by those methods you find
unacceptable? I don't think that is a reasonable expectation.
I do. It would be the only way they can have their own children. My
statement was that they will not stop at adoption.
"Sweetie, come here for a minute. Mommy wants to talk to you. Remember
how I always told you your daddy's name was Art? Well, it stands for
artificial insemination, and I can't tell you who he was, but I can show
you his specs. He was blond, over six feet tall, and of Norwegian
descent. So do you have any questions for mommy?"
....which has nothing to do with same-sex marriage. SSm is only a
red-herring.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "If God had intended us to walk, he wouldn't *
* have invented roller skates." --Willy Wonka *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
13 Sep 2005 07:45:54 AM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
I think I see the problem here. You are thinking I am saying that some
HARM will come to children raised by non-biological parents, like they
will beat them or something. No, I am saying that just the fact of their
being born not knowing who their parents are could be undesirable,
especially if you PLAN on such a situation or system.
It's plausible that with same-sex marriage, more same-sex couples (one
of the partners being the biological parent) will choose to have and
raise kids than would have done so without same-sex marriage. It is
even plausible that such a situation is not optimal, that it would be
better for kids to be raised by both of their biological parents.
However, kids being raised by a same-sex couple is not bad. It's just
another good that is less than optimal. And what happens without
same-sex marriage? Are those kids raised by their biological parents
instead? No. There are only two possibilites: 1) the kids aren't
born in the first place, or 2) they are raised by unmarried same-sex
couples.
You already said that having kids raised by unmarried same-sex couples
is not better than having them raised by married same-sex couples (and
maybe you agree that the latter is better than the former, which would
argue in favor of same-sex marriage). So, your entire argument rests
on the notion that society would be better off if kids weren't born in
the first place rather than being raised by a same-sex couple.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
13 Sep 2005 09:13:29 PM |
|
|
wrote:
You already said that having kids raised by unmarried same-sex couples
is not better than having them raised by married same-sex couples (and
maybe you agree that the latter is better than the former, which would
argue in favor of same-sex marriage). So, your entire argument rests
on the notion that society would be better off if kids weren't born in
the first place rather than being raised by a same-sex couple.
No, not RAISED, but BORN to a same sex couple. It isn't really that
complicated. I am against promoting more illegitimate children being born.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
14 Sep 2005 04:28:16 AM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:dHLVe.46063$4i6.37020@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
jrosenbluth@att.com wrote:
You already said that having kids raised by unmarried same-sex couples
is not better than having them raised by married same-sex couples (and
maybe you agree that the latter is better than the former, which would
argue in favor of same-sex marriage). So, your entire argument rests
on the notion that society would be better off if kids weren't born in
the first place rather than being raised by a same-sex couple.
No, not RAISED, but BORN to a same sex couple. It isn't really that
complicated. I am against promoting more illegitimate children being born.
Oh well, you don't get to make the rules. Illegitimate children are being
born every day and will continue to be so whether there's gay marriage or
not.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
14 Sep 2005 09:46:30 AM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
jrosenbluth@att.com wrote:
You already said that having kids raised by unmarried same-sex couples
is not better than having them raised by married same-sex couples (and
maybe you agree that the latter is better than the former, which would
argue in favor of same-sex marriage). So, your entire argument rests
on the notion that society would be better off if kids weren't born in
the first place rather than being raised by a same-sex couple.
No, not RAISED, but BORN to a same sex couple. It isn't really that
complicated. I am against promoting more illegitimate children being born.
Thus, your entire argument rests on the notion that society would be
better off if kids weren't born in the first place rather than being
born to a same-sex couple. Right?
In order to reach that conclusion, you must believe that a child born
to a same-sex couple is not merely less than optimal, but is outright
bad. Evidence?
And you still aren't dealing with the issue that same-sex marriage
results in kids being born to a married same-sex couple, that otherwise
would have been to an unmarried same-sex couple.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
14 Sep 2005 10:37:57 PM |
|
|
On 2005-09-13 19:13:29 -0700, Gary Eickmeier <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> said:
I am against promoting more illegitimate children being born.
One more red herring and we'll have enough bouillabaisse to feed the
displaced masses left homeless by Katrina.
--
GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825 --
"My bible is accurate where it needs to be." --Earl "duke" Webber
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
14 Sep 2005 06:39:09 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 02:13:29 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
jrosenbluth@att.com wrote:
You already said that having kids raised by unmarried same-sex couples
is not better than having them raised by married same-sex couples (and
maybe you agree that the latter is better than the former, which would
argue in favor of same-sex marriage). So, your entire argument rests
on the notion that society would be better off if kids weren't born in
the first place rather than being raised by a same-sex couple.
No, not RAISED, but BORN to a same sex couple. It isn't really that
complicated. I am against promoting more illegitimate children being born.
So, a gay couple hires a surrogate mother. Upon birth, the child is
the legal offspring of the man who donated the sperm, and his partner
immediatresly adopts the child.
How is this kid illigetimate in any way? S/he has two loving parents.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
13 Sep 2005 12:35:25 AM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Michael Altarriba wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
My main point is that this may matter a great deal to a human being, helping
to define who he or she is.
Yes, it may. And? You see this as being sufficient reason for denying
the institution of marriage to same-sex couples? I don't.
Yes.
Therefore, if you consider the needs of the children involved, gay
marriage should not be allowed to happen.
The missing piece of your argument is when you defend your assertion
that the fact that those same-sex couples who choose to raise children,
and who will do so via adoption, surrogacy, artificial insemination,
etc., will therefore result in children being harmed in some way.
I think I see the problem here. You are thinking I am saying that some
HARM will come to children raised by non-biological parents, like they
will beat them or something. No, I am saying that just the fact of their
being born not knowing who their parents are could be undesirable,
especially if you PLAN on such a situation or system.
OK, thanks for explicitly stating the core of your objection to
same-sex marriage.
Now, some followup questions:
1. If a child is raised in a loving, healthy, nurturing home by adults
who are not the child's biological parents, but the child's parents
nonetheless, now *could* this be harmful to the child?
2. What evidence can you offer to substantiate your concern that the
undesirability you're concerned about is sufficiently likely to justify
preventing the recognition of same-sex marriages?
3. Children today are being adopted, or created via artificial
insemination or surrogate motherhood or other methods, by means which
do what you're concerned about... intentionally create children to be
raised by parents who are not their biological parents. Given that this
is happening right now, would you seek to make such activity illegal?
Also, have you seen any evidence that this practice actually *is*
harming children, or has shown itself to be undesirable?
4. Do you object to same-sex marriage of the adults involved are not
going to have children?
5. Do you object to same-sex marriage if the adults involved expressly
plan to adopt a child that is already without their biological parents
(i.e. no plan to create a child that won't be raised by its biological
parents, but instead raising a child that, no matter what, won't be
raised by its biological parents)?
You haven't given me convincing reasoning, let alone evidence, to
support this assertion.
Also, your objection to same-sex marriage should, if you are being
consistent, also apply to mixed-sex marrage where the couple can't or
choose not to raise their own biological children. Would you outlaw
marriage in these cases, given that you have an equivalent situation to
that you object to with same-sex marriage?
Also, if same-sex marriage were made legal tomorrow (as it has been in
Massachussets, Canada, Spain, and elsewhere), do you really expect to
see a flood of children being produced by those methods you find
unacceptable? I don't think that is a reasonable expectation.
I do. It would be the only way they can have their own children. My
statement was that they will not stop at adoption.
"Sweetie, come here for a minute. Mommy wants to talk to you. Remember
how I always told you your daddy's name was Art? Well, it stands for
artificial insemination, and I can't tell you who he was, but I can show
you his specs. He was blond, over six feet tall, and of Norwegian
descent. So do you have any questions for mommy?"
This happens every day. Right now. Can you demonstrate that it's
causing harm of some sort?
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs - skip the aa" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
13 Sep 2005 08:25:41 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 18:53:25 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
I will point out one last time that the difference between a normal
marriage and a homosexual marriage is that with the former the children
will be raised by their actual, natural parents.
Or, after a divorce:
1) by one of them.
2) by both of them on alternating turns.
3) With family or in an orphanage.
See? Plenty of possibilities you rather ignore.
Homosexuals cannot
reproduce on their own, and so they must seek artificial means of
procreation.
Unfortunately, for you, reproduction is NOT a requirement for
marriage.
The resulting child would not be the natural child of this
couple, and may be deprived of its chance of even knowing who the
parents are.
Unlike children who were abandoned after birth.
My main point is that this may matter a great deal to a
human being, helping to define who he or she is.
No, sorry. Your main point is the breeder argument.
Therefore, if you consider the needs of the children involved, gay
marriage should not be allowed to happen.
Why, exactly? You haven't presented even ONE valid argument supporting
your claims.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 06:04:03 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Martin McPhillips wrote:
What about same-sex marriage? How do you justify current marriage
law without an nebulous appeal to morality?
Ah, how about based on the *meaning* of marriage, which is based in
the natural opposition and complementarity of the two sexes.
Other than by way of an arbitrary claim, how did you conclude that the
meaning of marriage is based in the natural opposition and
complimentarity of the two sexes?
Josh Rosenbluth
Whereas, in carpentry, when you join two boards together into one
structure, it is called "marrying" the boards.
Whereas, in postal terminology, "marriage mail" is the placing of an
address card together with so-called "junk mail" to form one mailing.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "If God had intended us to walk, he wouldn't *
* have invented roller skates." --Willy Wonka *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 05:50:48 PM |
|
|
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ZvqdnZ2dnZ0fI9HZnZ2dnbo6ud6dnZ2dRVn-z52dnZ0@comcast.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in
message news:_ZmdnZpBNfDWx7neRVn-qw@comcast.com...
I said, Lawrence concluded the state may not justify a law
based merely on its belief that certain conduct is
immoral. It must provide some *other* reason.
Of course the state can justify a law based
merely on its belief that certain conduct
is immoral, and in the second sentence
following the one you quote below, the Court
gives examples of things that it believes are
sufficiently immoral to justify a law:
Then, why does Scalia write in his dissent:
'The Court embraces instead Justice Stevens' declaration in his Bowers
dissent, that "the fact that the governing majority in a State has
traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a
sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice," This
effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation.'
Scalia is stating that the decision reached, ends all legislation based
on Morals, hence any law based on morals is now unconstitutional.
"This case does not involve minors, persons who might be
injured or coerced, those who might not easily refuse
consent, or public conduct or prostitution."
The Court thinks all of those can be justified using other means besides
a nebulous appeal to morality.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 09:35:02 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Although you are entitled to your personal belief about what is vice
and what is virtue, in the USA the law (Lawrence v. Texas) states that
moral disapprobation of conduct cannot be used as a rational basis for
law.
Huh? You mean like murder? Theft? Bigamy?
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 10:14:19 AM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
jrosenbluth@att.com wrote:
Although you are entitled to your personal belief about what is vice
and what is virtue, in the USA the law (Lawrence v. Texas) states that
moral disapprobation of conduct cannot be used as a rational basis for
law.
Huh? You mean like murder? Theft? Bigamy?
The first two do not require a nebulous appeal to morality. They both
cause harm to the innocent. The last one is debatable, but in order to
justify such laws, the state cannot merely say it offends its sense of
morality. It must provide some other reason. Texas was unable to do so
for sodomy. What is that "other reason" for not allowing same-sex marriage?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 11:09:40 AM |
|
|
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in
message
news:YrSdnZ2dnZ12HkvonZ2dnVHUud6dnZ2dRVn-052dnZ0@comcast.com...
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
jrosenbluth@att.com wrote:
Although you are entitled to your personal belief about
what is vice
and what is virtue, in the USA the law (Lawrence v.
Texas) states that
moral disapprobation of conduct cannot be used as a
rational basis for
law.
Huh? You mean like murder? Theft? Bigamy?
The first two do not require a nebulous appeal to
morality.
There is no "nebulous appeal to morality" in
objections to bigamy or sodomy. The moral objections
are clear and direct. Nothing nebulous about
them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 11:26:16 AM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:YrSdnZ2dnZ12HkvonZ2dnVHUud6dnZ2dRVn-052dnZ0@comcast.com...
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
jrosenbluth@att.com wrote:
Although you are entitled to your personal belief about what is
vice and what is virtue, in the USA the law (Lawrence v. Texas)
states that moral disapprobation of conduct cannot be used as a
rational basis for law.
Huh? You mean like murder? Theft? Bigamy?
The first two do not require a nebulous appeal to morality.
There is no "nebulous appeal to morality" in objections to bigamy or
sodomy. The moral objections are clear and direct. Nothing nebulous
about them.
Be specific then. Why are they immoral?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 04:26:28 PM |
|
|
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in
message news:_ZmdnZVBNfA3x7neRVn-qw@comcast.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote
in message
news:YrSdnZ2dnZ12HkvonZ2dnVHUud6dnZ2dRVn-052dnZ0@comcast.com...
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
jrosenbluth@att.com wrote:
Although you are entitled to your personal belief
about what is
vice and what is virtue, in the USA the law (Lawrence
v. Texas)
states that moral disapprobation of conduct cannot be
used as a
rational basis for law.
Huh? You mean like murder? Theft? Bigamy?
The first two do not require a nebulous appeal to
morality.
There is no "nebulous appeal to morality" in objections
to bigamy or
sodomy. The moral objections are clear and direct.
Nothing nebulous
about them.
Be specific then. Why are they immoral?
Bigamy is fraud: an intentional violation of
the exclusivity of marital vows by entering
into marital vows with a second person. It's
comparable to selling your property to two
different buyers.
Sodomy is an intrinsically disordered unnatural
act -- the use of the rectum as a vaginal
simulacrum. It's comparable to disfiguring
yourself to satsify a compulsion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 04:41:25 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:_ZmdnZVBNfA3x7neRVn-qw@comcast.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in
message
news:YrSdnZ2dnZ12HkvonZ2dnVHUud6dnZ2dRVn-052dnZ0@comcast.com...
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
jrosenbluth@att.com wrote:
Although you are entitled to your personal belief about
what is vice and what is virtue, in the USA the law
(Lawrence v. Texas) states that moral disapprobation of
conduct cannot be used as a rational basis for law.
Huh? You mean like murder? Theft? Bigamy?
The first two do not require a nebulous appeal to morality.
There is no "nebulous appeal to morality" in objections to bigamy
or sodomy. The moral objections are clear and direct. Nothing
nebulous about them.
Be specific then. Why are they immoral?
Bigamy is fraud: an intentional violation of the exclusivity of
marital vows by entering into marital vows with a second person.
That works if the second marriage is a secret. If it isn't ...?
Sodomy is an intrinsically disordered unnatural act
That is an arbitrary statement, not based on rationality. You might of
well as said, "it's yucky". That is the kind of appeal to nebulous
morality that Lawrence forbids.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 05:11:33 PM |
|
|
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in
message news:tPSdnXKFPuUbObneRVn-gQ@comcast.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote
in message
news:_ZmdnZVBNfA3x7neRVn-qw@comcast.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net>
wrote in
message
news:YrSdnZ2dnZ12HkvonZ2dnVHUud6dnZ2dRVn-052dnZ0@comcast.com...
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
jrosenbluth@att.com wrote:
Although you are entitled to your personal belief
about
what is vice and what is virtue, in the USA the law
(Lawrence v. Texas) states that moral disapprobation
of
conduct cannot be used as a rational basis for law.
Huh? You mean like murder? Theft? Bigamy?
The first two do not require a nebulous appeal to
morality.
There is no "nebulous appeal to morality" in objections
to bigamy
or sodomy. The moral objections are clear and direct.
Nothing
nebulous about them.
Be specific then. Why are they immoral?
Bigamy is fraud: an intentional violation of the
exclusivity of
marital vows by entering into marital vows with a second
person.
That works if the second marriage is a secret. If it
isn't ...?
If the second marriage follows a divorce, then there's
no problem. If the second marriage is concurrent to
the first it's a fraud against the institution of
marriage, much as perjury is a crime against
judicial process.
Sodomy is an intrinsically disordered unnatural act
That is an arbitrary statement, not based on rationality.
Ah, of course it is based on rationality. Is shoving
your fist down your throat a natural act? No?
Well sticking a ***** into a rectum is not a
natural act either.
You might of well as said, "it's yucky". That is the
kind of appeal to nebulous morality that Lawrence forbids.
Your thinking is getting sloppy, Josh.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 05:22:48 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in
message news:tPSdnXKFPuUbObneRVn-gQ@comcast.com...
Sodomy is an intrinsically disordered unnatural act
That is an arbitrary statement, not based on rationality.
Ah, of course it is based on rationality. Is shoving
your fist down your throat a natural act? No?
Well sticking a ***** into a rectum is not a
natural act either.
You might of well as said, "it's yucky". That is the
kind of appeal to nebulous morality that Lawrence forbids.
Your thinking is getting sloppy, Josh.
My thinking is dead-on point. Law based solely on "it's icky" is both
bad and now unconstitutional.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 05:28:45 PM |
|
|
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in
message
news:osidnZ2dnZ3LhOvDnZ2dnaQzud6dnZ2dRVn-y52dnZ0@comcast.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote
in message news:tPSdnXKFPuUbObneRVn-gQ@comcast.com...
Sodomy is an intrinsically disordered unnatural act
That is an arbitrary statement, not based on rationality.
Ah, of course it is based on rationality. Is shoving
your fist down your throat a natural act? No?
Well sticking a ***** into a rectum is not a
natural act either.
You might of well as said, "it's yucky". That is the
kind of appeal to nebulous morality that Lawrence
forbids.
Your thinking is getting sloppy, Josh.
My thinking is dead-on point. Law based solely on "it's
icky" is both bad and now unconstitutional.
So, you disagree with the Lawrence decision that
"icky" sex with minors and prostitution, and
"icky" public acts, warrant proscription? In
other words, you've "moved on" to the next
re-definition of what laws are constitutional
and the next re-definition of what constitutes
common sense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelo Disaster" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 05:53:13 PM |
|
|
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:xc2Ve.30553$%w.4597@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in
message
news:osidnZ2dnZ3LhOvDnZ2dnaQzud6dnZ2dRVn-y52dnZ0@comcast.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote
in message news:tPSdnXKFPuUbObneRVn-gQ@comcast.com...
Sodomy is an intrinsically disordered unnatural act
That is an arbitrary statement, not based on rationality.
Ah, of course it is based on rationality. Is shoving
your fist down your throat a natural act? No?
Well sticking a ***** into a rectum is not a
natural act either.
You might of well as said, "it's yucky". That is the
kind of appeal to nebulous morality that Lawrence
forbids.
Your thinking is getting sloppy, Josh.
My thinking is dead-on point. Law based solely on "it's
icky" is both bad and now unconstitutional.
So, you disagree with the Lawrence decision that
"icky" sex with minors and prostitution, and
"icky" public acts, warrant proscription? In
other words, you've "moved on" to the next
re-definition of what laws are constitutional
and the next re-definition of what constitutes
common sense.
Just a note,
This progression or "moved on", as you put it, is inevitable when the basis
of government is based on a "malleable" constitution. Ultimately, there are
only two possible results, anarchy or dictatorship.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 05:49:38 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:osidnZ2dnZ3LhOvDnZ2dnaQzud6dnZ2dRVn-y52dnZ0@comcast.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in
message news:tPSdnXKFPuUbObneRVn-gQ@comcast.com...
You might of well as said, "it's yucky". That is the kind of
appeal to nebulous morality that Lawrence forbids.
Your thinking is getting sloppy, Josh.
My thinking is dead-on point. Law based solely on "it's icky" is
both bad and now unconstitutional.
So, you disagree with the Lawrence decision that "icky" sex with
minors and prostitution, and "icky" public acts, warrant
proscription?
Lawrence concluded that those example laws are justified based on
reasons other than the conduct being "icky".
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
12 Sep 2005 07:01:26 AM |
|
|
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in
message news:msOdnXZQUYoeKbneRVn-gw@comcast.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote
in message
news:osidnZ2dnZ3LhOvDnZ2dnaQzud6dnZ2dRVn-y52dnZ0@comcast.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net>
wrote in
message news:tPSdnXKFPuUbObneRVn-gQ@comcast.com...
You might of well as said, "it's yucky". That is the
kind of
appeal to nebulous morality that Lawrence forbids.
Your thinking is getting sloppy, Josh.
My thinking is dead-on point. Law based solely on "it's
icky" is
both bad and now unconstitutional.
So, you disagree with the Lawrence decision that "icky"
sex with
minors and prostitution, and "icky" public acts, warrant
proscription?
Lawrence concluded that those example laws are justified
based on reasons other than the conduct being "icky".
Actually, as I said at the outset, Lawrence
concluded at the outset that homosexual sodomy
was protected conduct because it was private,
intimate, and consensual. There was never any
analysis of its potential harm to individuals
or society. The majority voted in a vacuum of
abstractions.
Since you're reading the case, reread Scalia's
dissent for a purpose other than finding lines
that support your argument here, such as it is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
12 Sep 2005 10:09:14 AM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in
Lawrence concluded that those example laws are justified
based on reasons other than the conduct being "icky".
Actually, as I said at the outset, Lawrence
concluded at the outset that homosexual sodomy
was protected conduct because it was private,
intimate, and consensual. There was never any
analysis of its potential harm to individuals
or society. The majority voted in a vacuum of
abstractions.
Since you're reading the case, reread Scalia's
dissent for a purpose other than finding lines
that support your argument here, such as it is.
Scalia addressed your argument as well. He noted:
'Most of the rest of today's opinion has no relevance to its actual
holding--that the Texas statute "furthers no legitimate state interest
which can justify" its application to petitioners under rational-basis
review. [...] Though there is discussion of "fundamental
proposition[s]," and "fundamental decisions," nowhere does the Court's
opinion declare that homosexual sodomy is a "fundamental right" under
the Due Process Clause; nor does it subject the Texas law to the
standard of review that would be appropriate (strict scrutiny) if
homosexual sodomy were a "fundamental right." [...] Instead the Court
simply describes petitioners' conduct as "an exercise of their
liberty"--which it undoubtedly is--and proceeds to apply an unheard-of
form of rational-basis review that will have far-reaching implications
beyond this case.'
Scalia is thus countering your argument that the case was decided
because the conduct was "private, intimate, and consensual". Scalia
says in spite of all the talk about "private, initimate and consenual,"
when the rubber hit the road, The Court applied the same-old
rational-basis review that applies to anything.
If Scalia is correct, then "icky" is out as a justification under
rational-basis review, and hence applies to anything ("far-reaching
implications"). If Scalia is wrong, and The Court de facto applied a
higher standard to sodomy because it is "private, intimate and
consensual," then The Court also de facto established a fundamental
right of sexual autonomy.
In either case, the case for same-sex marriage is strengthed. In the
former, the state must provide a rational for current marriage law
other than homosexuality is icky. In the latter, the state must fend
off a challenge that denying same-sex couples marriage does not burden
the fundamental right of sexual autonomy.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
12 Sep 2005 10:41:45 AM |
|
|
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1126537754.653181.273210@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote
in
Lawrence concluded that those example laws are
justified
based on reasons other than the conduct being "icky".
Actually, as I said at the outset, Lawrence
concluded at the outset that homosexual sodomy
was protected conduct because it was private,
intimate, and consensual. There was never any
analysis of its potential harm to individuals
or society. The majority voted in a vacuum of
abstractions.
Since you're reading the case, reread Scalia's
dissent for a purpose other than finding lines
that support your argument here, such as it is.
Scalia addressed your argument as well. He noted:
'Most of the rest of today's opinion has no relevance to
its actual
holding--that the Texas statute "furthers no legitimate
state interest
which can justify" its application to petitioners under
rational-basis
review. [...] Though there is discussion of "fundamental
proposition[s]," and "fundamental decisions," nowhere does
the Court's
opinion declare that homosexual sodomy is a "fundamental
right" under
the Due Process Clause; nor does it subject the Texas law
to the
standard of review that would be appropriate (strict
scrutiny) if
homosexual sodomy were a "fundamental right." [...]
Instead the Court
simply describes petitioners' conduct as "an exercise of
their
liberty"--which it undoubtedly is--and proceeds to apply
an unheard-of
form of rational-basis review that will have far-reaching
implications
beyond this case.'
First of all, you've confused Scalia's attempt
to untangle the actual jurisprudential meaning
of the majority's ruling with what the majority
is pretending to say.
Then you further confuse what Scalia is
saying about the majority's scandalously
messy decision with the things that I've
focused on in the decision.
Scalia is thus countering your argument that the case was
decided
because the conduct was "private, intimate, and
consensual".
No, Scalia is countering the argument of
the Court's majority about what it is doing.
Scalia
says in spite of all the talk about "private, initimate
and consenual,"
when the rubber hit the road, The Court applied the
same-old
rational-basis review that applies to anything.
You see, you knew that, but made a preposterous
turn above about how Scalia was countering
*my* argument.
If Scalia is correct, then "icky" is out as a
justification under
rational-basis review, and hence applies to anything
("far-reaching
implications"). If Scalia is wrong, and The Court de
facto applied a
higher standard to sodomy because it is "private, intimate
and
consensual," then The Court also de facto established a
fundamental
right of sexual autonomy.
What Scalia is correct about is the confusion
of the Court's jurisprudential reasoning. He
is telling the majority that it is talking out
of both sides of its mouth, contradicting itself,
and not making any sense.
In either case, the case for same-sex marriage is
strengthed.
Indeed, Lawrence, a bad decision using poor
legal reasoning, does strengthen the case for
"homosexual marriage," which is what some of us
were saying about it when it appeared. It's
one of the worst decisions ever produced by the
Court (which is really saying something), and
it will *have* to be overturned.
As I said earlier, that will happen first when its
reasoning is rejected in other cases, which will
lay the groundwork for overturning Lawrence itself
when the occasion presents itself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
12 Sep 2005 12:31:07 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1126537754.653181.273210@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
If Scalia is correct, then "icky" is out as a
justification under rational-basis review, and hence applies to anything
("far-reaching implications"). If Scalia is wrong, and The Court de
facto applied a higher standard to sodomy because it is "private, intimate
and consensual," then The Court also de facto established a fundamental
right of sexual autonomy.
What Scalia is correct about is the confusion
of the Court's jurisprudential reasoning. He
is telling the majority that it is talking out
of both sides of its mouth, contradicting itself,
and not making any sense.
I agree the ruling is confusing but it is neither contradictory nor
nonsensical.
Firstly, its essence is brilliant: the liberty interest at stake isn't
homosexual sodomy, it's sexual autonomy. Secondly it is confusing
because we don't know if: 1) sexual autonomy is a fundamental right and
the Texas statute fails strict scrutiny, or 2) sexual autonomy is not a
fundamental right and the Texas statute fails to pass even
rational-basis review, or 3) sexually autonomy is a fundamental right
and the Texas statute nonetheless fails rational-basis review.
Any of those 3 outcomes is logically possible, and hence the problem is
the reasoning is incomplete and leaves us a bit confused. But those
logical outcomes demonstrate it is neither contradictory nor
nonsensical.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 03:53:53 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Huh? You mean like murder? Theft? Bigamy?
The first two do not require a nebulous appeal to morality. They both
cause harm to the innocent.
What's wrong with that?
The last one is debatable, but in order to
justify such laws, the state cannot merely say it offends its sense of
morality. It must provide some other reason. Texas was unable to do so
for sodomy.
OK, our laws are mainly to promote good order and protect the weak from
harm - generally, to promote the common good. I agree that we should not
be branding scarlet letters on maidens' foreheads.
What is that "other reason" for not allowing same-sex
marriage?
Have you been paying attention Josh?
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 04:05:03 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Huh? You mean like murder? Theft? Bigamy?
The first two do not require a nebulous appeal to morality. They both
cause harm to the innocent.
What's wrong with that?
The last one is debatable, but in order to justify such laws, the
state cannot merely say it offends its sense of morality. It must
provide some other reason. Texas was unable to do so for sodomy.
OK, our laws are mainly to promote good order and protect the weak from
harm - generally, to promote the common good. I agree that we should not
be branding scarlet letters on maidens' foreheads.
What is that "other reason" for not allowing same-sex marriage?
Have you been paying attention Josh?
At first you offered promotion of procreation. But as Scalia pointed
out, the infertile and elderly nix that idea. But then you clarified,
you weren't talking about "if marriage then children", but rather "if
children than marriage". Thus according to you, we need to forbid
same-sex marriage in order to keep children from being raised out of
wedlock. You have totally lost me how forbidding same-sex marriage
encourages children to be raised within wedlock.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 11:41:40 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
At first you offered promotion of procreation. But as Scalia pointed
out, the infertile and elderly nix that idea. But then you clarified,
you weren't talking about "if marriage then children", but rather "if
children than marriage". Thus according to you, we need to forbid
same-sex marriage in order to keep children from being raised out of
wedlock. You have totally lost me how forbidding same-sex marriage
encourages children to be raised within wedlock.
Follow me closely now Josh: No homosexual marriage = only normal
marriage. Normal marriage = wedlock.
Very tired right now. More tomorrow.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
