"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. 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.

> > 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.

It is religious and civil.

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

Well, then you would have an interesting fight on your hands wouldn't you.

> >>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.

Ummm, was that not said in the process of determining whether or not a law
holds 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.
>
> 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?

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)?

>  >>>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?

At trying to drag me into an unnecessary and irrelevant conversation.

> >>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?

You implied it. 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)?

> > 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?

Well I suspect there are. As with any attempt at drawing dividing lines
along a continuum with a nearly infinite variety of degrees of genetic
variation, I suspect that there are some species out there for which
monotypic versus polytpic is a very close call.

> > 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, the ability to win against yourself must be particularly helpful in
maintaining that reputation.

> >>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.

I'm from Detroit and spent a considerable amount of time living in a suburb
of Cincinnati that was geographically in Kentucky.

> > 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?

Sure. And your point is?

> > 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, M-W gives 7 distinct definitions, depending on context.

> >>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.

Well, I think we've already demonstrated what happens when you start making
your silly assumptions.

> >>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 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.) 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.

> 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.

You really haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. 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.

> - Kevin

Jeff