|
Grex > Agora46 > #47: Supreme Court strikes down antisodomy laws in "Lawrence v. Texas | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 191 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 75 of 191:
| 
Jul 3 01:18 UTC 2003 |
true but a Constitutional Amendment would be the federal government specifying
the definition of marriage, to head off more progressive states from making
gay marriage legal as is bound to happen particularly given the recent
Supreme Court decision.
|
keesan
|
|
response 76 of 191:
|
Jul 3 02:01 UTC 2003 |
So you expect marriages between close relatives to be banned because they
might produce children, and marriages between people of the same sex to be
banned because they can't produce children? How about banning marriages
between other people who can't product children (infertility, menopause,
having been sterilized)? Banning marriage with anyone having a known genetic
defect in their family?
|
scg
|
|
response 77 of 191:
|
Jul 3 02:02 UTC 2003 |
I seriously doubt that anybody would use an anti-gay constitutional ammendment
as *the* major campaign issue. As something done in the background to score
points with a certain group, likely, but not as the major issue of the
campaign. The Religious Right is going to vote Republican anyway. Among
swing voters, such a push would tend to turn people off.
|
richard
|
|
response 78 of 191:
|
Jul 3 02:09 UTC 2003 |
what about legalizing incestual marriage IF the husband could provide
documentation that he's had a vasectomy and/or the wife could provide
documentation that she's had her tubes tied. And both sign sworn statements
saying they'll never attempt to have said procedures reversed and will never
have kids? Then what would the objection be? So long as they are not having
kids, they are still consenting adults, so whose business should it be whether
they are in a relationship? you don't have to approve of a lifestyle to
accept other people's rights to live it if they choose so long as issues of
mutual consent are satisfied (i.e. no beastial relationships, or adult-minor
relationships or other types where one party isn't capable of legally
consenting)
|
russ
|
|
response 79 of 191:
|
Jul 3 03:34 UTC 2003 |
Ditto #73. The total lack of reasoning evident in the responses
of the likes of Sen. Santorum has been making me queasy for years.
(Similar lack of reasoning is evident on the left on their own set
of topics, but I haven't been hearing as much from them lately.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 80 of 191:
|
Jul 3 03:40 UTC 2003 |
If such an amendment were adopted, I think it would be an enormous spur to
creative family arrangements through other legal means and maybe even a
bigger flight from "marriage" because of the greater availability of
alternatives that may have significant financial or other advantages.
|
pvn
|
|
response 81 of 191:
|
Jul 3 03:48 UTC 2003 |
There is a statistical phenomena known as "deviation to the mean" that
suggests two smart parents tend to have dumber children and vis versa.
The ancient hawaiian ali'i practiced sibling incest although didn't
exclusively procreate thusly. You might have many children but only
those via your sister or brother could be heirs. They also culled all
defectives. Their culture existed for thousands of years with a very
limited gene pool. Just as one may amplify an bad gene one may
similarly a good one. There are other scientific example. Thus one
might conclude that a "scientific" arguement against incest is flawed or
even false and not the basis upon which to pass law.
(#79 slipped in)
Santorum's published out of context remarks are not 'unreasoned'. I
would suggest that his remarks re: the texas case would indicate that
both you and he (and even I) would have a lot in common. For example,
his "state's rights" arguement is very close to a "libertarian" position
which I believe you hold.
|
tod
|
|
response 82 of 191:
|
Jul 3 04:34 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
scg
|
|
response 83 of 191:
|
Jul 3 04:37 UTC 2003 |
Richard seems rather obsessed with incest.
|
russ
|
|
response 84 of 191:
|
Jul 3 05:28 UTC 2003 |
Re #76, last sentence: That used to be done, here and elsewhere.
It was called "eugenics", and it acquired a bad reputation.
I can think of ways that the benefits might be achieved without
either the evil connotations or coercive nature of past attempts.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 85 of 191:
|
Jul 3 13:29 UTC 2003 |
Re #81: Santorum is making a slippery slope argument, but he's making the
dumb kind because there's a significant difference between the
acts that have been legalized and the ones he claims will have to
be legalized next.
|
jazz
|
|
response 86 of 191:
|
Jul 3 14:16 UTC 2003 |
Dan Savage, in his column Savage Love, has come up with an alternate
definition for the word "santorum" (in lower case) that makes #85 particularly
funny.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 87 of 191:
|
Jul 3 14:50 UTC 2003 |
Re #81: I think the expression you wanted was "regression to the mean".
And it doesn't mean that two smart parents tend to have dumber children,
but rather that measurements of "smartness" contain significant error
components, which cancel out as more data are obtained.
|
other
|
|
response 88 of 191:
|
Jul 3 15:36 UTC 2003 |
I'm aware of eugenics, and if you read my post, you'd notice that what
I'm suggesting is FAR from:
From WordNet (r) 1.7 :
eugenics
n : the study of methods of improving genetic qualities by
selective breeding (especially as applied to human
mating) [ant: dysgenics]
I am merely suggesting that modern mechanisms of social conditioning be
applied in a very specific and valuable way where traditional methods are
failing due to the breakdown of social taboo.
|
polygon
|
|
response 89 of 191:
|
Jul 3 15:56 UTC 2003 |
Re 81. Infanticide is common in island cultures due to limited resources.
Inbreeding plus ruthless culling works for farm animals, but humans don't
usually act this way.
Re eugenics: "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." -- Oliver
Wendell Holmes, Jr., U.S. Supreme Court, Buck v. Bell (1927), upholding
sterilization of "feeble minded" individuals. (Since overruled.)
|
tod
|
|
response 90 of 191:
|
Jul 3 15:59 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jazz
|
|
response 91 of 191:
|
Jul 3 16:13 UTC 2003 |
The word has a lot of bad associations based on people who've
"supported" it in the past. Much like Darwinism did from "social darwinism",
which had precious little to do with Darwin's theories, and had much more to
do with a pseudoscientific attempt to justify the status quo which latched
on to a then-fashionable term.
There's nothing wrong with the idea of having healthier, more
intelligent, capable children.
It's what people have done in the name of that that's wrong.
|
tod
|
|
response 92 of 191:
|
Jul 3 16:17 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
polygon
|
|
response 93 of 191:
|
Jul 3 16:25 UTC 2003 |
Michael Kinsley in Slate has proposed getting government out of marriage.
Let any church or organization or individual marry however they please, he
suggests, and base the financial and childrearing issues on contract
instead.
See http://slate.msn.com/id/2085127/
|
tod
|
|
response 94 of 191:
|
Jul 3 16:27 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jazz
|
|
response 95 of 191:
|
Jul 3 16:28 UTC 2003 |
Ironically, Todd in #92 suggests one of the darker things that the
Eugenicists tried to institute, restricting who can breed. I hope it's
sarcasm.
|
tod
|
|
response 96 of 191:
|
Jul 3 16:32 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 97 of 191:
|
Jul 3 18:27 UTC 2003 |
Re #93: What about obligations of third parties, which currently exist
toward married couples (e.g. companies providing benefits to
spouses, the spousal testimonial privilege, allowing next of kin
to visit in the hospital)? None of those will exist toward the
kind of contractual relationship you're describing.
|
tod
|
|
response 98 of 191:
|
Jul 3 18:36 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 99 of 191:
|
Jul 3 18:52 UTC 2003 |
How would a contract between the two spouses obligate people or organizations
other than them?
|