"Kevin Gowen" <kgowenNOSPAM@myfastmail.com> wrote in message
news:2q0d0tFns2kdU20@uni-berlin.de...

> What new class would that be? Setting genetics aside, if SCOTUS
> determines same-sex marriage to be a constitutional mandate, it is going
> to have to gymnastics on par with Carly Patterson if it wants to decline
> extending EP to other marriages such as incestuous and polygamous ones.
> Scalia's dissent spoke directly to this point:
> "State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest,
> prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and
> obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation
> of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called
> into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin
> the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding."

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. I do think
prohibition of same-sex
marriage does because it is based on the sex of the would-be spouses.
Prohibitions of polygamy and bigamy might be problematic since they could be
couched as
discrimination based on religion (which gets even higher scrutiny than
discrimination based on sex.) But I don't really give a rat's ass if Tom
Green wants to have 5 wives either. Let him.

> The prohibition against incestuous marriages is based on social mores,
> nothing more. The old "deformed offspring" chestnut is a post hoc
> pseudoscientific rationalization for people who want to tell themselves
> that their liberated minds are far above morals-based laws. As you have
> admitted, marriage has nothing to do with children, so why would
> offspring matter at all?

Doesn't matter what it is based on, it matters whether it can hold up to
constitutional scrutiny. I believe prohibition of incestuous marriages can
under current fourteenth amendment law,
but I don't believe prohibition of same sex marriage can.

> I might be able to understand your anti-incest bigotry if you could
> explain the purpose of the state's issuance of marriage licenses. I've
> always considered marriage to be a social and religious exercise, so I
> don't particularly see why the state needs to get involved.

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.

> > Would
> >
> >>>you care to distinguish between the court's differing treatment of
> >>>discrimination based on race and discrimination based on sex then,
since
> >>>both are based on genetics?
> >>
> >>You think that race is based on genetics? ホホホ. Race, unlike sex, is a
> >>social construct. Most biologists reject the idea of races with Homo
> >>sapiens and classify us as monotypic, although about 70 years ago some
> >>government scientists in Europe had some ideas about biological races
> >>within Homo sapiens. The idea of dividing human beings into races based
> >>on morphological differences is quite a recent concept. Sex is not a
> >>construct
> >
> >
> > Do you really have trouble distinguishing between the dangerous and
> > ridiculous ideas that German scientists held 70 years ago and the notion
> > that the physical features that people generally use to determine one's
race
> > have a basis in one's genes?
>
> Saying "Genetics determine the color of one's eyes" and "Genetics
> determines one's race". I notice that you have been very careful to talk
> about genetically determined morphological differences rather than race
> itself as being genetically determined. This is smart of you. However,
> as a scientific wunderkind, you should know that morphological
> differences are not the sole determinant as to whether or not a species
> is polytypic. If it were, every species would be polytypic and the term
> would be meaningless. This is why biologists and anthropologists today
> reject the notion of biological race within Homo sapiens. It is a social
> construct.

No argument there. But, although it is a social construct, it is not one
that is determined by your income level, nor is it determined by what
religion you are taught, etc. It is determined by the genes you inherit from
your parents, only because those genes determine the physical traits that
society will later use to label you.

> > How often have you seen a Caucasian couple
> > spontaneously pop out a baby with African or Asian features?
>
> I don't know. First I would need to know the biological definitions of
> the Caucasian, African, and Asian races. Do Asians tend to look more
> like Vladimir Putin, Mohandas Gandhi, or Koizumi Jun'ichiro? Is George
> W. Bush the same race as Usama bin Laden?

Nice try. But there is no need to drag me into that silly conversation to
know exactly what I mean.

> > Of course I do
> > not subscribe to the notion that there is any substantive genetic
difference
> > between the races, nor do you have to subscribe to such beliefs to
> > understand that one's physical features (which, for better or for worse,
> > have historically been used as a basis for classifying people into
various
> > races) are determined by one's genetics. And even if you are inclined to
> > toss out this notion, you still have people classifying people into
races
> > based on the race of their parents, so we're back to genetics (with no
less
> > tenuous of a basis in genetics than your claim that prohibition of
> > incestuous marriages is a genetic issue.) I do not advocate separating
> > people into races for any reason, but the reality is that many people
do,
> > and some of those people use the classification of race as a basis for
> > discrimination, which means that whether you will be subject to such
> > discrimination is largely determined by your appearance, or who your
parents
> > are, and hence by your genes.
>
> That's all well and good, but biologically and genetically speaking,
> race does not exist in Homo sapiens. We are monotypic. We can point to
> the chromosome that determines sex. Can you point to the chromosome(s)
> that determine race? The U.S. Human Genome Project was not successful in
> doing so.

Oh, so it has to be an entire chromosome before it rises to the level of
being a genetic issue? Well then, you've just defeated your own argument
about discrimination against incestuous marriage. No matter how monotypic we
are as a species, I am far more genetically similar to my sister than I am
to any single individual society has labeled as being a member of any of the
non-Caucasian races. You win!

> >>I must say, your pronouncement about the genetic basis of race made me
> >>remember reading the old 1950s World Book Encyclopedia in my
> >>grandmother's house, which listed the three biological races of
> >>Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid. It's very quaint. I don't keep up
> >>with California trends so maybe there is a Gobineau revival of sorts,
> >>Mr. Mond?
> >>
> >>As I have said before, if you were inclined towards science, you would
> >>have gone to medical school. There is a very good reason why mathematics
> >>and science are not tested on the LSAT.
> >
> >
> > I hope you don't jump to conclusions that have no basis in fact like
that in
> > your practice of the law, counselor.
>
> Well, I only intend to practice law if I can't make more money doing
> something else. That having been said, your performance so far has not
> betrayed a penchant for left-brained matters.

It demonstrates little more than an admitted lack of familiarity with issues
surrounding the genetics of incestuous procreation, a topic that anyone
interested in science should be intimately familiar with. Pardon me while I
hang my head in shame.

> > I've scored far higher in math and
> > science than any other subject ever since I took my first standarized
test
> > back in junior high school. I started undergrad as a biology major and
> > switched to political science at the last minute (about the same time I
> > decided not to go to medical school, only because I didn't want a life
of
> > the kind of stress I was exposed to working part time in a nursing home:
> > seeing people die and not being able to do anything about it.)
>
> Where, in some backwater like Kentucky? Is that where you got that
> corker about incestuous breeding causing horribly deformed offspring?

Well, I have generally been exposed to many of the same myths and old wives
tales that most people are, including the one about incest and deformities.
But I have generally never been one to take something at face value unless
someone can explain why. I distinctly recall reading in Carl Sagan's Shadows
of Forgotten Ancestors, an explanation as to why incest leads to an
increased risk of stillbirths. We all carry a certain number of genes with
mutations that make them fatal. But because we are almost certainly
heterozygous with respect to such mutated genes, we are generally fine even
though we carry the mutation. But incestuous breeding leads to a higher
chance of having offspring who are homozygous with respect to the mutated
version of the gene. In any event, I misspoke when I said "severe
deformities." I admit this exchange has been a bit of an eye opener with
respect to this topic. But as I've also pointed out it doesn't have any
effect whatsoever on my position regarding same sex marriage.

> > I generally
> > don't read fiction or literature, and other than a lot of books on
Japanese
> > history (the only "humanities" subject I have any interest in), my
bookshelf
> > is overwhelmingly filled with books on mathematics (recursive functions,
> > strange attractors, etc. were a pet subject about 10 years ago) and
science
> > (cognitive science and books about complex adaptive systems are two
favorite
> > subjects, and my favorite authors include Stuart Kauffman, Douglas
> > Hofstadter and Daniel Dennett.) Admittedly I have been reading primarily
> > legal stuff and Japanese history for the past 6 years or so, but if you
> > think science and mathematics aren't my strong points, guess again.
>
> Then where did your linguistic howlers about what determines the
> meanings of words come from? Or, is linguistics a "humanity"?

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. I'm not sure if you consider that proposition to be "a howler" (or
what you propose as a substitute, unless you are one of those God awful
prescriptivists...), but more than an ample critical mass has agreed upon
the meaning of "right" in English, and it is not nearly as limited as the
meaning you were trying to sell to us earlier in this thread.

> >>>Trying to expand equal protection to incestuous
> >>>relationships because it is "genetic" is rather absurd logic don't you
> >>>think?
> >>
> >>Not at all. What's absurd about it?
> >
> >
> > Because genetics have never been a basis for equal protection
challenges.
>
> Yes, they haven't. However, I don't see the leap between lack of
> precedent to "absurd". There is a first time for every matter that comes
> before a court.

How about this: you get it before the court and I'll even write an amicus
brief for you.

> Seriously, I do think that genetic EP, although most probably not on
> this issue, will and should come before SCOTUS soon. Procedures such as
> IVF and PGD, the second of which I find to be absolutely ghoulish, are
> routine. American parents are practicing eugenics today, so I think the
> application of EP to genetics should be explored lest we risk some sort
> of genetic caste system, soft or otherwise.

All I will say is, techniques that are designed to allow otherwise infertile
couples to have a fighting chance of having their own children should not be
confused with the Brave New World fantasyland you are attributing to these
technologies.

> > The factors that have traditionally been considered are things like how
much
> > political power the proposed class has, whether their characteristics
are
> > immutable, whether there is a history of discrimination against them,
etc.
> > In other words, equal protection is a legal protection that protects
certain
> > people from the harmful effects of the imperfect and rather
nonscientific
> > reasons people have typically used to single people out for unfair
> > treatment.
>
> Yes, that is what the factors have traditionally been. So, what are the
> rather scientific reasons for the unfair treatment of relatives who wish
>   a marriage license from the state?

There are actually some plausible scientific theories as to why incest is
almost universally condemned. But who said there has to be a scientific
reason for what society deems desirable?

> As parents continue to give birth to designer babies, I wonder what sort
> of discrimination would develop? But, I guess that wouldn't be
> discrimination based on "rather unscientific reasons," would it?

Nobody is giving birth to designer babies, they're just trying desperately
to *have* babies.

> >>All this talk about science doesn't seem to be your strong suit. Maybe
> >>we should go back to talking about naked parades?
> >
> >
> > Don't confuse your arrogance for someone else's naivete.
>
> Well, then I guess my plans to run as a Democrat to challenge George W.
> Bush have been dashed.
>
> - Kevin

Jeff