I’m tellling u that homo, although meaning the same and hetero meaning different were used by psychiatrists to indicate morbid sexual attractions as opposed to procreative ones. I’ve lost the article link but am 100% that’s what it said, with a reference to a psych manual.
Again it was hetero vs normal, and homo vs normal. There was no prior need to define the two because before then each was considered a deviation from normal.
I think u should be looking at this thinking, “By the old manuals, heterosexuals were considered deviant just like homosexuals.”
The logic is solid.
Procreative = “normal”
Hetero= not normal
Homo = not normal
2 and 3 each used to differentiate from normal. Probably a gazillion SD for both, but equally deviant.
So if I poke my spouse in the butt, by this definition I’m as far off as a dude poking another dude, and I thoroughly believe that (and wouldn’t do it regardless). And each of those is equally abhorrent/deviant.
I’m not trying to get into a procreation argument again. What I was trying to do was present some etymology.
I’m not sure if you think “fundamentally distinct” is distinct from “distinct,” but homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage are distinct. The distinction between men and women is well defined biologically, socially, and (most important in this case) legally. As long as we can tell the difference between a man and a woman, we can tell the difference between two men, two women, and a man and a woman. Thus heterosexual and homosexual marriage are distinct. So long as they are distinct, you can ban one and not the other without violating equal protection. The important bit is just that everyone has to be held to the same laws.
Scalia’s concern here is exactly the point. This is a legislative question, not a judicial one. With the exception of Loving, the other cases you mention are also basically legislative questions. (Loving is not because unlike sex, race is not a concept that can generally be defined legally or biologically in a non-recursive, objective, consistent, and empirical manner. Consequently, interracial marriage is not legally distinct from intraracial marriage and thus a ban on one but not the other violates the 14th amendment.)
Judicial activism and the willingness to move far beyond the plain text of the Constitution by the Supreme Court is unraveling the United States as a government. I actually think the concept of legal precedent in Supreme Court cases is itself rather troubling. That is to say, the Supreme Court sets legal precedent for lower courts and bodies, but should not consider it when trying new cases. Otherwise, the interpretation of the Constitution gradually morphs and grows into something very different from, and in some cases in direct conflict with, the plain text interpretation of the words.
no, that logic is not solid. Even if it was, as it was already pointed out, that would mean any sex not intending to procreate is “not normal” (whatever that means) and therefore… what exactly? Should be banned?
Still not seeing how this has ANYTHING to do with marriage.
Ok, so you think its wrong. Good for you. What does this have to do with marriage? Are you trying to say that not only do you think homosexuals should not be allowed to be married, people who have anal sex should not be allowed to be married?
No, am pointing out what “I” see as the logical order of things.
As for “normal”, I considerate that as what the typically expected and desired means to the end of marriage is. I don’t see it as ONLY a legalized union of two people. I mean hell, any two people should be allowed to have a contract, but marriage isn’t always the correct term IMO.
This means nothing. What is “typically expected” and “desired means to an end”??
If you’re talking about procreation again, there is no such requirement for marriage. You are making things up. This has already been said to you, but if you were against marriage on THAT principle, then you should divorce your wife when she gets to menopause, be against marriages after menopause, and believe people who can’t have kids shouldn’t get married.
Its almost like you refuse to acknowledge anything anybody else has said, and I’m not sure how to help with that. Good thing every year there are fewer and fewer people who think like you, one could say you’re not “normal”.
That’d be the creation of a family unit dammit. I didn’t get married so we could be just a couple forever.
Nooo, not the case. Y do u think our sex organs are there? And whether we can procreate or not by using them for what they’re there for, it’s still what the existence of them is about as their core function.
No, menopause doesn’t = divorce. In my view, nothing short of one of us dying ends our marriage. When I said “Until death we do part” as part of the Holy vows, i meant it.
Opposite sex couples who can’t make kids aren’t the issue because they use their reproductive organs for their original purpose regardless.
Why can’t you “get” what God, or Mother Nature or whatever it is you believe in has endowed us with a specific purpose of those organs and that any other use is therefore unnatural?
And I’m NOT making things up. This system has been taught by every culture since the dawn of humanity. The family is the building block of society. Each family leader (dominant person) is the family’s “president” and it goes up the line in society. One mate typically submits to the other, or rather they submit to each other as a team, kids (should) submit to their parents, family submits to laws, and we all participate in making those laws. I’d have thought the flower crowd would be all about the citizenry being one big family. And the core of a family is two people trying to multiply, down the line exponentially. How do u think we all got here?! Grrrr.
Regardless of what u think, history speaks for itself and witnesses to procreation as how humanity survives.
Again, that’s the intent of our reproductive systems’ use, and just because there’s something that prevents procreation, using them in the manner that would otherwise create new life remains their proper function.
You say I’m a dying breed but what if everyone was instantaneously homosexual? The human race would be a dying breed.
The whole “I feel” stuff is self-autonomy, which is a thought process that doesn’t respect authority of any type, and is therefore contrary to a peaceful society. With that line of logic, I could excuse any action I take with a claim of "But I feel I’m an (x type) person, so what if I did (y). YOU say it’s against the law and the norms of society but “I feel” .
Without a submission to authority we get anarchy. I’d prefer not to have that, although I’m fairly confident I’d be able to ensure the survival of my family longer than the majority of Americans, especially those who’ve never been soldiers.
Maybe for the sake of the “tolerance” crowd it’s more comfortable to think I’m a dying breed, but guys like me brought their asses into this world, and can certainly out multiply them. So think what you want. You are wrong and if anyone is making things up, it’d be people like you inventing their own reality, which by the way blows the definition of reality all to hell now doesn’t it?
But maybe that’s to do with the “Alternative Lifestyle” thing - it’s an alternate reality that is just a figment of the imagination of folks who can’t handle the actual reality of the world.
The entire. LBGT movement has come about in what, the past century? So we’re supposed to believe that it will outlast what has stood for multiple millennia? Guess we need to figure out time travel to see how THAT will work out. Fact is, it will be history much sooner than men like me will be.
I shouldn’t be responding to captain obsessed with other people’s genitals yet here we go again.
God doesn’t exist but if we pretend he does why does he allow it? He created them, they fit, and in an arousing manner. Seems like God either wants butt sex or doesn’t mind one bit.
You can find all sorts of gay sex in nature so out goes the mother nature argument.
You keep making this argument and it is beyond awful I can’t believe I keep responding to it. What if every single person on this planet jumped out of a plane with no parachute? Or lit themselves on fire? Wouldn’t it be really fun to talk about stuff that has no chance of happening? We should totally do that. This makes your argument so strong.
This is another horrible argument. Depending on what you mean by movement we may have something to talk about. Gay marriage isn’t going anywhere. Most of the country supports it or doesn’t care. Most people realize it just doesn’t matter. Sure if you want to believe it is going away you can and you can believe blacks and whites will have separate restrooms again or something as well. Nothing stops you from making piss poor arguments over and over again but if you look at where public opinion polling currently sits and what has happened in the past decade with the question the answer is obvious.
Also keep in mind we just had an election for President and no one cared. It was a complete non issue. So how exactly does this change?
I don’t know about your bizarre survival of your family thing. This isn’t the fucking hunger games straights vs. gays or something no one really gives a shit. Gay guys aren’t coming to get you and the straight guys that don’t give a shit who other people fuck aren’t either.
If you want to be scared though you practice the faith of the team that frequently has people in charge who are having sex with young men. Now that’s a fun hypothetical for you. What if every catholic priest sexually assaulted little boys instead of most of them?
But then we just got right back to the “those who are most homophobic tend to be gay.” Save us from the stories of your boners surrounded by men though please. Still telling that you have an exponentially greater chance of hanging out with gay dudes on a Sunday morning than I do, but as I’ve said all along I’m not judging. I leave that to your faith. That and the sexual abuse.
If you want to discuss the ins and outs of why you disagree with the majority opinion it would be helpful to go beyond conclusory, and yet counterfactual, statements. SCOTUS ruled that homosexual marriage and hetrosexual marriage are not distinct legaly. So please explain how is the fact that men and women are distinct biologically relevant to this discussion. The one argument that would make this is relevant (procreation) was made irrelvant in Griswold.
Did you read my point on Scalia’s dissent? I’m sympathetic (damn that sounds arrogant) to his argument, but we also run into Griswold here. Are you arguing against constitutional protection for contraception by married couples? If you are, are you then saying that because Griswold should have been a legislative question that the precedent set by Griswold is invalid? Curious.
Really? Precedent shouldn’t matter to SCOTUS? That’s an interesting viewpoint. One that completely flies in the face of U.S. jurisprudence, but interesting in the you have to be joking kind of way. Unless I’m misunderstanding your point, I don’t think I can take this comment seriously. Perhaps this would be a fun one to expand upon though. I’m not saying SCOTUS doesn’t reverse itself on occasion (there are certainly some famous examples such as Brown v. Board of Education), but where are you going with this? “Hey, I know we said this last year, but F it, we changed our mind for basically no reason?”
As for the plain text comment, if anything I’d argue that the cases over the last couple of decades have moved the court closer to plain text interpretation. Take, for example, the decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.
Yeah but what if in 1800 everyone decided to be gay and we had no kids and the current Supreme Court wasn’t born? I think you have to start with that question.
There is a difference between two things that can be distinguished legally and two things that should be distinguished legally. For the moment, I’m not making a judgment about whether or not hetero and homo marriage should be distinguished legally. I’m only saying that they can be. That is, given a sufficiently good reason to do so, a lawyer could conclusively prove that a heterosexual marriage is definitively a heterosexual marriage and definitely not a homosexual marriage. And vice versa. By confusing the ability to distinguish and the attachment of importance to that distinction, you are begging the question.
Yes, I am arguing that there is no constitutional protection for contraception. I have read the constitution and the subject does not come up. Thus, yes, the so called precedent set by Griswold should be invalid. Courts are to interpret laws and the constitution. Legal precedent is neither. It is simply the opinion of an unelected official on the interpretation of a law or the constitution. It becomes canonized into pseudo-law because 4+ other unelected officials happened to agree substantively with that interpretation. In some cases, even the arguments put forth in dissenting opinions are later cited as support.
Then later, other unelected officials make an interpretation of that interpretation and that interpretation also becomes pseudo-law. Frequently, these pseudo-laws may even conflict or at least support conflicting interpretations. This leads to a situation where almost any conclusion can be supported given a majority of five unelected officials with the will to do so.
I see your point that the Supreme Court needs to avoid reversing itself too often, but this basically arises because the Supreme Court is far too willing to rule on subjects that aren’t plainly laid out in the Constitution. I would add that my aversion to the use of precedent applies mostly to issues of Constitutionality rather than interpretations of law. Laws should be interpreted consistently. My point is just that a past interpretation should not be used to build a case for something being unconstitutional.
In general, you’re right that there have been some very good plain text interpretations in recent history.