necoandjeff wrote:

> "Kevin Gowen" <kgowenNOSPAM@myfastmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2q3ilbFns2kdU42@uni-berlin.de...
> 
> 
>>Did you read _Lawrence v. Texas_? I don't see how you could have read it
>>and say that. _Lawrence_ strikes down laws that criminalize homosexual
>>sodomy based on "liberty [that]  gives substantial protection to adult
>>persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters
>>pertaining to sex". Is this a special gay liberty? Homosexual sodomy by
>>definition is a form of fornication, so why does other fornication get
>>the same liberty protection? All the laws you cite above seem to run
>>afoul of _Lawrence_.
> 
> 
> Yes, I did. And if you did you would know that it was held to be a violation
> of due process not equal protection. 

Yes. Thank you for mentioning a fact that does not matter, as you said 
"Like I said before, the state can pass whatever kind of law it damn 
well pleases, so long as it doesn't violate the *constitution*. I don't 
think that a law prohibiting bigamy, adult incest, prostitution, 
masturbation, adultery, fornication, betiality or obscenity do that." 
(emphasis added) Due process, like equal protection, is found in the 
constitution.

> I really don't intend to get dragged
> into a full blown discussion in fj.life.in-japan about "Human Sexuality and
> the Constitution." I have neither the time nor the interest.

Then why did you start talking about masturbation laws?

>>So marriage is a religious institution, then? Why is the state granting
>>marriage licenses at all, if that is the case? Seems like an
>>Establishment Clause violation to me.
> 
> 
> It is religious and civil.

Of course it is. My question is *why* is it civil at all?

>>>Doesn't matter what it is based on, it matters whether it can hold up to
>>>constitutional scrutiny.
>>
>>Actually, it does matter. As _Lawrence_ tells us, "the fact a States
>>governing majority has traditionally viewed a particular practice as
>>immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the
>>practice". See that? Morals/taboo are not sufficient.
> 
> 
> Ummm, was that not said in the process of determining whether or not a law
> holds up to constitutional scrutiny?

Yes, it was. Since you said, "it matters whether it can hold up to 
constitutional scrutiny", it was quite relevant to quote a passage that 
addressed whether a law held up to constitutional scrutiny.

>>>Other than determining who may enjoy the various rights (ooh, there's
> 
> that
> 
>>>nasty term "right" again) granted to married couples (I think Rosie
>>>O'Donnell counted over 1,000), I don't either.
>>
>>In that case, how can you determine what is a "important government
>>objective" with regards to the regulation of marriage if you have no
>>clue about the government's objectives in licensing marriages in the
>>first place?
> 
> 
> Where did I say I have no clue, or did you mistake my sarcasm for an actual
> statement that I had no clue (despite having given one in the first half of
> the sentence)?

I'm sorry, were you being sarcastic? As an American, I sometimes have 
difficulty with irony. Let me see if I can cut through the sarcasm and 
determine your answer...

"The purpose of civil marriage is for the state to determine who may 
enjoy the rights granted to married couples"

I think that Professor Copi would call this a tautology.

>>Nice try at what?
> 
> 
> At trying to drag me into an unnecessary and irrelevant conversation.

As opposed to this very necessary conversation?

>>>Oh, so it has to be an entire chromosome before it rises to the level of
>>>being a genetic issue?
>>
>>Who said that?
> 
> 
> You implied it. 

I implied nothing of the kind.

> What was your point in asking which chromosome determines
> race while pointing out that an entire chromosome determines sex (said in
> the context of my earlier question regarding how you distinguish sex as
> being a genetic issue while maintaining that race is not)?

My point is that there is no biological races with Homo sapiens.

>>There are degrees of monotypicity?
> 
> 
> Well I suspect there are. 

No, it's an either/or thing. It's like saying, "No matter how bipedal we 
are as a species."

>>Jeff, I always win. That is why people rarely challenge me.
> 
> 
> Well, the ability to win against yourself must be particularly helpful in
> maintaining that reputation.

Are you talking about masturbation again? Masturbation, naked parades, 
bestiality...when did you guys have time to study the law?

>>>I'm sure you meant to say lexicology. My point was that words have
>>>particular meanings because a certain critical mass of people agree on
> 
> that
> 
>>>meaning.
>>
>>Then idiolects do not exists?
> 
> 
> Sure. And your point is?

Without a "critical mass of people", how could an idiolect ever have a 
vocabulary?

>>I suspect more than an ample critical mass has agreed upon the meaning
>>of "people", but you would be amazed at how many people say the 2nd
>>Amendment refers to a collective rather than an individual right.
> 
> 
> Yes, M-W gives 7 distinct definitions, depending on context.

How many contexts does the Constitution have?

(PS Try the OED. It's better.)

>>Given your time in Kentucky, my guess is that you'd have better luck
>>knowing folks who could assert standing.
> 
> 
> Well, I think we've already demonstrated what happens when you start making
> your silly assumptions.

Which one was the first silly assumption?

>>Do you know what PGD is? It stands for Pre-Implantation Genetic
>>Diagnosis. It is a genetic weeding procedure, used to discard embryos
>>that are undesirable for reasons from carrying a congenital disorder to
>>having the wrong sex. It has very little to do with infertile couples
>>and their fighting chances.
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact I do. Apparently you do not. You see Pre-Implantation
> Genetic Diagnosis is, as the name would clearly imply, is a technique that
> may only be applied to embryos that have been created through IVF (i.e. it
> is used only by couples who already have trouble conceiving naturally.) 

Where did you get the idea that IVF is only used for couples who have 
trouble conceiving naturally?

> It
> is a technique that is sometimes (though by no means often) recommended to
> help increase your chances of achieving pregnancy. Here, educate yourself a
> little Kevin while you await the bar results:
> http://www.infertile.com/treatmnt/treats/pgd.htm. Given the fact that
> destroying 1/8 of the embryo to perform the test is a requirement (thus
> reducing slightly the chances that the embryo will survive if it is
> implanted), it is only recommended and performed in very, very limited
> circumstances.

Hmm. Quite a shift from "nobody is giving birth to designer babies" to 
"very limited circumstances". Slide, slide, slippity slide. Bow wow wow 
yippy yo yippy yay.

>>>Nobody is giving birth to designer babies, they're just trying
> 
> desperately
> 
>>>to *have* babies.
>>
>>No, really, they are. Do you know what PGD is?
>>http://www.fertility-docs.com/fertility_gender.phtml
>>
>>"The first method provides virtually a 100% assurance (guarantee) that a
>>resulting birth will be of the gender selected."
>>
>>The people using PGD to select gender are not trying desperately to have
>>babies. Quite the contrary. They generally have an abundance of babies
>>as a consequence of trying to have a baby of a given sex.
>>
>>Tell me again about what a scientific whizkid you are.
> 
> 
> You really haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. 

I humiliated you? Oh my goodness, I'm sorry.

> And the
> fact that you have found some doctors who are using a particularly
> technology in ways that you find troubling says nothing about how that
> technology is normally applied.

I thought that "no one" was having designer babies? I'm sure it will end 
with gender selection, Jeff. People will never decide to weed out other 
"undesirable" genetic traits.

I think I was born just in time.

Now that all that scientific stuff is out of the way, what are some good 
reasons for banning incestuous marriage? The thought makes you feel 
"icky", perhaps?

I think you make a fine lawyer who draws up contracts and does business 
transactions. You should avoid being the 
making-arguments-in-court-and-crossexamining-witnesses type of lawyer.

- Kevin