necoandjeff wrote:

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

Oh, so *that* was the purpose of my constitutional law classes!

> I don't think that
> a law prohibiting bigamy, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation,
> adultery, fornication, betiality or obscenity do that. 

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_.

Furthermore, asserting the constitutionality of a law outlawing
fornication seems rather asinine in light of _Eisenstadt_'s holding that
unmarried persons have a constitutional right to purchase
contraceptives. Is this to protect the right of frat boys to purchase
Trojans to make water balloons?

Outlaw masturbation? I would have been on death row by my 15th birthday.

By the way, I have never understood why people say "adult incest". I've
never known the definition of "incest" to include children.

> I do think
> prohibition of same-sex
> marriage does because it is based on the sex of the would-be spouses.

That's great, but _Lawrence_ seems to preclude all of the laws you
mention above. You may now commence with the gymnastics.

> 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.

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.

Or, maybe someone could just cook up some religion that permits
incestuous marriage.

>>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. 

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.

> I believe prohibition of incestuous marriages can
> under current fourteenth amendment law,
> but I don't believe prohibition of same sex marriage can.

Here, have some talcum powder.

>>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.

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?

 >>>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.

Nice try at what?

>>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? 

Who said that?

> Well then, you've just defeated your own argument
> about discrimination against incestuous marriage. No matter how monotypic we
> are as a species, 

There are degrees of monotypicity?

> 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!

Jeff, I always win. That is why people rarely challenge me.

>>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 thought you were from Kentucky (or at least went to school there), so
you should have known where championship thoroughbreds come from.

> 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.

Then why did you blurt out the comment about offspring if it was
irrelevant? Wait, you had three years of law school. Nevermind.

>>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. 

Then idiolects do not exists?

> 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.

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, 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.

Given your time in Kentucky, my guess is that you'd have better luck
knowing folks who could assert standing.

>>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.

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 I said before, absolutely ghoulish.

> 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?

_Lawrence_ said.

>>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.

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.

- Kevin

P.S. OE-Quotefix is your friend. Thunderbird/Agent/40tude/almost any
other newsreader are even better friends.