PROFESSOR: How is my incest different than Homosexuality?

[Teddy B 17,251]

I do not understand this response.

Does this help?

[mota bhai 2,675]

Does this help?

Negative.

[Teddy B 17,251]

Some dogs have fetishes.

[mota bhai 2,675]

Because of you, I just disabled images on VJ again.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Some dogs have fetishes.

Mr. Anderson, how we've missed you

[Teddy B 17,251]

Because of you, I just disabled images on VJ again.

Again? You must've had a very eventful first day as a member here on VJ.

[Teddy B 17,251]

Some dogs like breakfast in bed.

And some dogs have a discerning appetite.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Teddy B

[Penny Lane 8,159]

I demand every thread have a picture of puppies in it.

[Teddy B 17,251]

I demand every thread have a picture of puppies in it.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

OMG. Looks like my dog when he was just a baby.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Evylin

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Did you read the title to this topic? We're not talking about normal people here.

I meant Normal as in have states less than 5 million or 10 million respectively.. As for who sticks what in what orifice if you ever arrive at normal let me know. Kinsey sure could not

Does this help?

Now that explains the world Awesome

[Mike B. 231]

I don't think that was directed at me, but I'll bite. A ban on gay marriage does not violate the 14th amendment. A ban on gay marriage says that anyone can marry someone of the opposite gender while no one can marry someone of the same gender. That is equal protection under the law.

For instance, if the government bans rocky road ice cream, that's equal protection. Everyone can eat vanilla and no one can eat rocky road. Naturally, the ban really only affects people that liked rocky road from the beginning, much like a gay marriage ban only affects people that wanted to marry someone of the same gender to begin with. But that doesn't mean that the law doesn't affect everyone equally.

If the 14th amendment criticism of gay marriage was valid, then the 14th amendment would make all laws unconstitutional, provided you could find someone who had no desire to break said law and someone who did have a desire to break said law. A reasonable interpretation of the 14th amendment cannot take desire to break or not break the law into account.

Now, to the subject of bestiality. I agree that states have the right to ban it and the 14th amendment is not applicable. But assume that the 14th amendment did protect gay marriage and outlaw bans on such. Why would the same argument not apply to bestiality? If someone is protected in his or her right to marry a same gender partner because others are allowed to enter into relationships with heterosexual partners according to their desires, then a person would have to be protected in his right to enter into a relationship with his or her dog.

I am not saying that bestiality is equivalent to homosexuality. My point is only that the 14th amendment does not provide a solid basis on which it can be applied to one and not to the other.

On the subject of consent, animals are not generally required to consent to most actions to which they are subjected. Naturally, animal abuse is illegal. However, if the animal is not physically harmed and does not resist inordinately, then there is little basis for arguing that the animal is abused. Even extreme resistance is not necessarily evidence for abuse as animals regularly resist various actions of their owners.

This argument wasn't made by the side of those who were in favor of the constitutionality of Prop 8, to my knowledge. This is probably because your argument runs very, very close to a similar one that was popular in the past and is now considered embarrassing. In the 1950s and 60s southern states lined up to make the argument that all sorts of racist laws weren't really equal protection problems because when you really think about it, they kind of fall on blacks and whites evenly. For example, a law against interracial marriage could be said to equally prohibit whites from marrying blacks as it does blacks from marrying whites, so where is the equal protection problem? Similarly, segregated schools could be said to merely prevent everyone from attending integrated schools. Sure, black people were prohibited from attending white schools, but white people were also prohibited from attending black schools, so in a way, everyone is being treated equally, in that they equally are being prevented from integrating.

As recently as a ten years ago in Lawrence v. Texas the state of Texas made the argument that laws against sodomy don't violate equal protection because they prohibit heterosexual men from having ####### sex with other men just as much as they prevent homosexual men from doing so. In fact, during oral arguments, Texas opened up with the (really quite bizarre) claim that Lawrence was never really proven to be a homosexual, and in fact could have merely been a heterosexual man who enjoyed having ####### sex with other men. If its possible that Lawrence isn't part of some sort of class of protected people, the argument went, then the whole idea of a equal protection claim falls flat. In the end, it was argued, the statue only "descriminates" against people who engage in illegal conduct.

But Texas lost that case, and the Supreme Court found that the law was "targeted at more than conduct. It is instead directed toward gay persons as a class.... A State can of course assign certain consequences to a violation of its criminal law. But the State cannot single out one identifiable class of citizens for punishment that does not apply to everyone else, with moral disapproval as the only asserted state interest for the law. The Texas sodomy statute subjects homosexuals to a lifelong penalty and stigma. A legislative classification that threatens the creation of an underclass ... cannot be reconciled with the Equal Protection Clause."

Similarly, in Loving, the Court found that while laws against interracial marriage can be said to fall on blacks and whites equally, the fact that a racial distinction is being drawn means that the legislation is subject to strict scrutiny, and that the laws in question are "obviously an endorsement of the doctrine of White Supremacy."

I would argue that proposition 8 is similarly situated. The proposition does prevent straight people from marrying people of the same sex (why would they ever want to?) in the same way that the statue in Texas prevented straight men from having ####### intercourse with other men (why would they ever want to?) and in the same way that segregated schools prevented white people from attending run-down schools built for blacks (why would they ever want to?). So yes, you can twist anything into an argument that people are being treated equally. But there has to be a higher scrutiny of these laws, and such scrutiny would quickly find that the purpose of these laws is to punish an unpopular class of people, period. Gay marriage isn't illegal because of some compelling reason of state, it's illegal because people find homosexuality to be yucky and thus making gay sex and gay marriage illegal is a good way to punish them for being such yucky people. That's all it's about. The laws against having sex with your daughter have a totally different purpose: they are illegal to prevent coercion, rape (who can say that a minor daughter has true power to consent to her father's demands?), the medical problems that arise with children born of incest, etc. Those are all compelling interests.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

This argument wasn't made by the side of those who were in favor of the constitutionality of Prop 8, to my knowledge. This is probably because your argument runs very, very close to a similar one that was popular in the past and is now considered embarrassing. In the 1950s and 60s southern states lined up to make the argument that all sorts of racist laws weren't really equal protection problems because when you really think about it, they kind of fall on blacks and whites evenly. For example, a law against interracial marriage could be said to equally prohibit whites from marrying blacks as it does blacks from marrying whites, so where is the equal protection problem? Similarly, segregated schools could be said to merely prevent everyone from attending integrated schools. Sure, black people were prohibited from attending white schools, but white people were also prohibited from attending black schools, so in a way, everyone is being treated equally, in that they equally are being prevented from integrating.

As recently as a ten years ago in Lawrence v. Texas the state of Texas made the argument that laws against sodomy don't violate equal protection because they prohibit heterosexual men from having ####### sex with other men just as much as they prevent homosexual men from doing so. In fact, during oral arguments, Texas opened up with the (really quite bizarre) claim that Lawrence was never really proven to be a homosexual, and in fact could have merely been a heterosexual man who enjoyed having ####### sex with other men. If its possible that Lawrence isn't part of some sort of class of protected people, the argument went, then the whole idea of a equal protection claim falls flat. In the end, it was argued, the statue only "descriminates" against people who engage in illegal conduct.

But Texas lost that case, and the Supreme Court found that the law was "targeted at more than conduct. It is instead directed toward gay persons as a class.... A State can of course assign certain consequences to a violation of its criminal law. But the State cannot single out one identifiable class of citizens for punishment that does not apply to everyone else, with moral disapproval as the only asserted state interest for the law. The Texas sodomy statute subjects homosexuals to a lifelong penalty and stigma. A legislative classification that threatens the creation of an underclass ... cannot be reconciled with the Equal Protection Clause."

Similarly, in Loving, the Court found that while laws against interracial marriage can be said to fall on blacks and whites equally, the fact that a racial distinction is being drawn means that the legislation is subject to strict scrutiny, and that the laws in question are "obviously an endorsement of the doctrine of White Supremacy."

I would argue that proposition 8 is similarly situated. The proposition does prevent straight people from marrying people of the same sex (why would they ever want to?) in the same way that the statue in Texas prevented straight men from having ####### intercourse with other men (why would they ever want to?) and in the same way that segregated schools prevented white people from attending run-down schools built for blacks (why would they ever want to?). So yes, you can twist anything into an argument that people are being treated equally. But there has to be a higher scrutiny of these laws, and such scrutiny would quickly find that the purpose of these laws is to punish an unpopular class of people, period. Gay marriage isn't illegal because of some compelling reason of state, it's illegal because people find homosexuality to be yucky and thus making gay sex and gay marriage illegal is a good way to punish them for being such yucky people. That's all it's about. The laws against having sex with your daughter have a totally different purpose: they are illegal to prevent coercion, rape (who can say that a minor daughter has true power to consent to her father's demands?), the medical problems that arise with children born of incest, etc. Those are all compelling interests.

Interesting, I have to disagree to some point

[mota bhai 2,675]

Interesting, I have to disagree to some point

How is he supposed to respond to you if you don't specify what you disagree with?

[Mike B. 231]

Exactly we are talking about someone making the Legal case that "all" adults have the "right" to define marriage or a relationship as they are inclined to do.

This isn't about some far-off assumptions such as marriage to a horse.... no these are real life relationships which could be motivated by a number of factors and are buttressed by nearly every

argument the Gay marriage folks used.

How does this man and his daughter(s) having sex effect your life?

If you don't want to marry your kids.... then don't.

Their commitment to each other "honors" marriage.

Polling shows a steady acceptance of "Free-marriage" you should get on the right side of history.

It's just not fair the people in a loving relationship not enjoy the benefits like everyone else.

Blah, blah, blah

You're creating a straw man argument intentionally. Either that, or you don't understand the arguments in favor of gay marriage. They are as such:

The Supreme Court has recognized that homosexuals are a protected class of persons and that legislation cannot target them with the sole purpose of expressing moral disapproval (Lawrence v. Texas). The Supreme Court has also found that there is a right to marry that cannot be denied on the basis of membership in a class of persons (Loving v. Virgina). California has enacted a constitutional amendment that denies a class of persons the right to marry in order to express its moral disapproval of membership in the group. California is thus violating the Constitution.

You're living in a fantasy world if you think there's any danger of that argument being used to argue for a constitutional right to have sex with your young daughter. I mean, just pure fantasy.