Texas has a law which prohibits sodomy (basically anti-Gay sex law). It was challenged as being unconstitutional. The argument is that the government should not legislate (or prohibit) consensual sex acts of adults carried out in the privacy of their homes (its a free country afterall).
So, the case is now pending with the Supreme Court. During this debate, U.S. Senator Rick Santorum created a storm by issuing the statement that “If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.”
This has drawn the battlelines between gay right activists and the champions of morality. Gay activists say its wrong to equate gay sex with e.g incest. Their opponents say, its not equality but the classic case of slippery-slope argument. If you allow one thing, what possible grounds do you have for prohibiting another similar thing. As National Review senior editor, Ramesh Ponnuru in his essay, “Sexual Rights,” makes the following statement, “If all private morals laws are to be held unconstitutional it is hard to see how laws against prostitution or, even more, incest could be maintained.”
I know a lot of us would argue that from an Islamic state, this will be a non-issue and hence should not even be debated. However, for arguments’ sake, lets just focus on USA and provide your input on where and why do you draw the line on making laws about private morals?
Let's look at it from a realistic point of view and not from an islamic state perspective. The law is unconsitutional to the degree where it tries to equate homosexuality with incest. This is not an issue of slippery slope syndrome, this is an issue of sexual behaviour between consenting adults in their own home. Ramesh Ponnuru is a moron, there is no equation to prostitution and incest because they in the former there is an exchange of money for the service and in the latter it is violation of rights of a minor. Even gay prostitution would fall under this mandate.
Matsui, not all incest is with a minor. Lets just focus on consensual sex between adults.
If you say anti-gay sex laws are unconstitutional, then what, in your opinion, is the basis for having anti-bigamy or anti-polygamy laws? Whats the possible justification why many states (if not all) have laws that prohibit sex between brothers and sisters (assuming both are adults)? Why not give people the right to engage in sexual conduct within the privacy of their homes, anyway they wish?
Continuing on your thoughts, why do you think prostitution should not be permitted across all states, as long as it is between consenting adults? Its just a service, some would argue, often offered in the privacy of homes.
Actually, anyone else who wishes to share their thoughts are also invited.
I think you are trying to legislate morality. Laws are formed on the basis of timeliness and public will in the US. As their is no divine mandate, it is not what it right and what is wrong morally, it is what is right and what is wrong per the times we live in and the societal norms at that time. The laws evolve and continue to evolve.
Certain biological and psychological truths help in this legislative process. brother/sister/cousin marriages deem higher risk for congenital diseases for the offspring. Therefore it is unthinkable.
The problem here is not whether the two gay guys can hide the salami, it is whether there relationship is equatable to incest or polygamy or polyandry or whatever? Laws designed by men help us make such distinctions possible and treat each thing on its merit.
Could you imagine if this would have happened in some theocracies.
Matsui. No, this is just a discussion. No one from us is actually making laws, yet. However legislating morality is precisely what we have in US with laws which interfere in an individuals rights to hire someone for sex, prohibiting sex between brothers and sisters, bigamy, polygamy or what not. These are all laws about morality. Are they not?
Secondly, the latest scientific report published last year suggested that marriage between first cousins is far less likely to produce abnormal children than is commonly believed.](http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2002-04-04-cousins.htm) If we agree that this research is correct, does that mean that laws prohibiting marriages between cousins are defective and bad law (based on incorrect scientific evidence)?
However, thats actually just nit-picking.
The actual issue which I want to discuss is why should or why shoud not, the government be legislating morality confined to adults within the privacy of their homes? This includes gay sex, incest between adults, bigamy, poligamy, prostitution among other things. In a free-society, why should the government interfere in what adults do in the privacy of their homes?
If you are going to discuss all those things....as equals then include hetero sex as well. If youa re equating gay sex with incest then you can equate hetero sex with incest as well.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Matsui: *
Certain biological and psychological truths help in this legislative process. brother/sister/cousin marriages deem higher risk for congenital diseases for the offspring. Therefore it is unthinkable.
[/QUOTE]
So because of AIDS sex outside marriage should be unthinkable?
with liberty.. someones rightsare gonna get trampled upon.. i truly believe that liberty cannot be given to all.. and its true... and laws are implemented so that we can assure preserveance of liberty.. now I believe and im against homosexuality for more than one reason but i believe that the senator is seeing homosexuality immorally rathar than legally.. Legally it shouldnt matter.. if according to kaw a man and woman have equal rights and those rights incluse their right to carry out consensual sex acts of adults carried out in the privacy of their homes then a consenting male is allowed to have consensual sex acts with another male adult carried out in the privacy of their homes. Incest is wrong because it is with a child who is legally not an adult.
Lets keep sex with minors out of this discussion (Incest can be with adults as well, like two grown up brother and sister etc).
The question is, in a free secular society, what rights does the state have to legislate the sexual activities of consenting adults? And why? And if the state decides to legislate some sexual activities, then why not others, or vice versa?
And Matsui, if you do some research you will find out the real reason why cousin marriages are not permitted in 30 states. And its not because of bad chromosomes. People didn't even knew what is a chromosome when they put those laws in place. Then you can do a proper song and dance about separation of church and state, and we will all enjoy it too. :)
The more I read Matsui the more I get convinced that MOST of his arguments are based on acquired SURFACE knowledge. He is a typical desi who would love to claim he has seen a movie only after watching the 30 second trailor on local TV.
Faisal, for once it would be good to understand what your point of view is. Any two year old can pose questions, do you have a point here or just more singing and dancing?
You keep asking to keep incest out of this discussion. Why is that? If you are looking at laws defining morality then that one needs to be included and let’s also include hetero sexual acts along with that. Now, the question is should the gov’t oversee hetero sex, homo sexual sex, incest )adult or minor, child pornography, polygamy, polyandry on similar footings? Or should each instance be looked at on it’s own merit and jurisprudence be applied.
incest:Sexual relations between persons who are so closely related that their marriage is illegal or forbidden by custom.
The statutory crime of sexual relations with such a near relative.
this definition comes from dictionary.com. believe it or not, alot of the laws in the United States are grounded in religion. If this debate continues I foresee it eventually getting to where our moral standards come from. To the dismay of atheist, theologins suggest that with that "religions", in a purely secular world, there would be no morals.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Matsui: *
You keep asking to keep incest out of this discussion. Why is that?
[/QUOTE]
I think funguy was right on target that you don't really read before opening your mouth. Since you obviously have trouble reading, I have never said incest is out of this discussion. I said "sex with minors" is out of this discussion. Still don't get it? If you want to talk about consanguinity laws, yeah, go right ahead. Laws prohibiting incest, bigamy, polygamy, polyandry, adultry, prostitution, sodomy... all these laws legislate sexual activities between consenting adults. If they take away one, why not the others. Thats the question.
The consanguinity laws are based on religious taboos. It has nothing to do with medical evidence (or chromosomes) as you repeatedly tried to disinform. Separation of Church and State, right? ha!
Go ahead, knock yourself out. And if you don't have an answer, just sit quiet and wait for more knowledgable people to respond.
Faisal, seems as if you have trouble reading as well.
Read my post prior to this, the definition of incest has been expanded to include your assertion
Your originating post is biased from the very beginning. You "draw the line" between Gay-rights activits and "champions of morality", as if gay rights activists are amoral. And then you carp about spreading "disinformation" .
I will grant that the puritanical begininnings of this country form the basis of many laws. But the process of judicial review is man made and takes precedence over those. No laws are set in stone. Each one, and I repeat, each law can be looked at within the confines of the times and greater public will.
There is greater relevancy in comparison of gay sex and striaght sex than gay sex and prostitution.
The question is, in a free secular society, what rights does the state have to legislate the sexual activities of consenting adults? And why? And if the state decides to legislate some sexual activities, then why not others, or vice versa?
the state has the right to interfere with sexual activity of adults to the degree where the right of one of the indiviual is infringed.. and in a rlationship where the right are not being infringed the state does not need to interfere.. like i said before if one man is raping another one.. it is wrong and the victims right is being infringed therefore it is the duty of the state to protect the right of victim but if its two men who want to do their "thing" the state does not have to interfere. like i said before if a man and woman are allowed to have a consenting sexual relationship then a adult man and another man should be allowed as well.
and the sexual activities that state regulates are the ones that revolve around protecting the rights of victims.. such secual activies are again rape, incest / molestation
No one is condoning rape or sex with minors. In both cases we are dealing with "victims" who should be protected. No arguments there.
By the way, you have lumped "sodomy" with rape and molestation, which is slightly confusing. "Sodomy" is basically gay sex, which is the central question behind this debate. If two adult guys want to engage in sodomy with each other in the privacy of their home, Texan law says they can be prosecuted if caught by tthe police. This law has now been challanged in the Supreme Court.
By your argument it seems, you are in agreement that the government of a free and modern secular society should not legislate private consensual sexual activities between adults. Is that correct?
i swear i wrote consenual but i deleted it and typed consenting.. i dotn kno why... but that made sense to me.. and im sorry for the mixed up thread.. i do have ppl bothering me .. n im a bit frustrated.. still that is no excuse.. lemme get me a cup of chai an ill come up wth a reply
