|
Grex > Agora46 > #47: Supreme Court strikes down antisodomy laws in "Lawrence v. Texas | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 191 responses total. |
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?
|
tod
|
|
response 100 of 191:
|
Jul 3 19:24 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 101 of 191:
|
Jul 3 19:44 UTC 2003 |
The contract is currently between the couple and the State, which takes care
of all these issues. I'd want to keep that. A contract just between the
couple means almost nothing since, if they can make the contract, they can
amend it (unless the State is involved, which would mean it is a contract
between the couple and the State.....).
The Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist really showed his true colors, and
the intent of the Republicans, when he referred to marriage as a "sacrament".
It is only a "sacrament" in religions, so apparently he doesn't think much
of the First Amendment and "separation of church and state".
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 102 of 191:
|
Jul 3 20:16 UTC 2003 |
Re #100: Yes, your employer could agree to provide benefits to your
"contracted spouse." But the government won't, and your employer
won't be required to (or required to give you leave under the
FMLA if I remember correctly).
|
tod
|
|
response 103 of 191:
|
Jul 3 20:28 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 104 of 191:
|
Jul 3 22:02 UTC 2003 |
#83...no I am not obsessed with incest, sheesh...I wasn't even the one who
brought it up in this item. I was just, as with the topic of gay marriages,
attempting to address people's objections as I think the best way of dealing
with these things isn't always to simply outlaw private behaviours that really
aren't the government's business. Doesn't mean that I don't think incest is
a sick behaviour, or that I condone it. Like I said, you don't have to
condone something to accept people's rights to do it
|
tod
|
|
response 105 of 191:
|
Jul 3 22:27 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 106 of 191:
|
Jul 3 23:12 UTC 2003 |
Re #103: I think you do have to tell them who you're taking leave to care
for, though, and it may have to be a relative by blood or marriage.
|