|
Grex > Agora46 > #47: Supreme Court strikes down antisodomy laws in "Lawrence v. Texas | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 191 responses total. |
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.
|
tod
|
|
response 107 of 191:
|
Jul 3 23:23 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
russ
|
|
response 108 of 191:
|
Jul 4 00:48 UTC 2003 |
Re #81: I doubt it. "State's rights" originated as a code-phrase
for denying individual rights; I'm all about telling government
that huge areas are None Of Their Freaking Business, and "Congress
shall make no law..." applies to their capitols too. States don't
have rights, anyway; they have powers.
And you mean "regression to the mean".
|
janc
|
|
response 109 of 191:
|
Jul 4 01:27 UTC 2003 |
(I'm no expert, but I believe that the risks of genetic defect in children
of incestuous couples is not nearly as high as popularly believed. I'd
readily believe that doing substantial smoking or drinking during pregnancy
are compariable risks. I think basing an argument against incest solely
on the risk of defects in children would be a dubious proposition.)
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 110 of 191:
|
Jul 4 03:47 UTC 2003 |
Re #107: Well, then the Feds won't enforce the FMLA for gays taking care of
their partners, now will they?
|
russ
|
|
response 111 of 191:
|
Jul 4 12:23 UTC 2003 |
Re #109: Drinking, definitely. A friend of mine reports that some
large fraction of Inuit children in the far north are born with FAS
or FAE (and I am not talking about 2%, I recall something like 30%).
I understand that Everclear now comes laced with a bit of an emetic,
to prevent people from overdosing on it quite so easily. Perhaps
the same would justify adding RU-486 to all alcohol; I cannot see a
coherent claim that a right to reproduce includes the right to
damage one's children prenatally, and the people who cannot control
their consumption probably wouldn't make good parents anyway.
The current situation is already selecting against susceptibility
to alcoholism, but damn, would that put evolution into overdrive!
|
slynne
|
|
response 112 of 191:
|
Jul 6 20:43 UTC 2003 |
Um. I have a feeling that RU-486 isnt really all that safe for men or
even for women to take on a regular basis. I do get your point though.
If there were a safe substance to put in alcohol that prevented
pregnancy, it would be an interesting idea.
|
drew
|
|
response 113 of 191:
|
Jul 6 22:53 UTC 2003 |
What about RU-Pentium?
|
keesan
|
|
response 114 of 191:
|
Jul 7 06:19 UTC 2003 |
How about a safe substance to put in alcohol that eliminated any interest in
sex?
|
pvn
|
|
response 115 of 191:
|
Jul 7 08:11 UTC 2003 |
Its called ethanol.
|
keesan
|
|
response 116 of 191:
|
Jul 7 10:47 UTC 2003 |
It takes too long to start working.
|
gull
|
|
response 117 of 191:
|
Jul 7 13:52 UTC 2003 |
Re #93: I've favored something like that for a long time, and I think
I've suggested it before on Grex. I think the contract issues would
have to be made much easier than they are now -- perhaps something along
the lines of a "civil union" law. Right now getting just some of the
legal benefits of marriage without actually marrying (you can't get them
all) involves about half a dozen different legal documents. Only a
lawyer could love that situation.
I don't think this has a snowball's chance in hell of happening, though.
The religious right would spin it as an "anti-Christian" move.
Re #114: <hums "Too Drunk to Fuck" by the Dead Kennedys>
|
jazz
|
|
response 118 of 191:
|
Jul 7 14:46 UTC 2003 |
Hahahaha.
I don't think Sindi meant in the quantities the Kennedys drank.
|