From: lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu (Brett G. Lemoine)
Subject: Re: A question
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University - Chemistry Dept. Programmer
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:58:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.175441.2206@csrd.uiuc.edu>, g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes...
}(I think we agree that government should not legislate morality.)
} 
}lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu (Brett G. Lemoine) writes:
} 
}>In article <BtLJq8.Gvt@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes...
}>}lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu (Brett G. Lemoine) writes:
}>} 
}>}>Homosexuals are not allowed to marry the persons of thier choice.
}>} 
}>}Why is this a problem?  Who cares whether the government affirms one's
}>}marriage?  I don't.
} 
}>There are legal ramifications... taxes can be filed jointly, same-sex spouses
}>would be allowed visitation in hospitals, etc. Currently, there is not a state
}>in the nation (that I'm aware of) that allows homosexual couples to file their
}>taxes together.
} 
}I thought this would come up, but I stopped short of moving on to this
}before opening the discussion up to other comments.  Joint tax returns
}is a good example.  The hospital example does not refer to government
}(as far as I can tell), so I'll leave it out.

I think the hospital is relevant... hostpitals with "family only" visitation
policies recognize blood relatives and legal relationships (such as marriage).
Since the state does not recognize same-sex couples as married, the hospital
policy is the result.

}> There is _no_ rational justification for this
}>discrimination.
} 
}Is it discrimination?  I would say no.  At the same time I understand
}why some would think it is.  I would call it favoritism.  I think
}there is a difference.  Homosexuals retain their rights, but
}heterosexuals who choose to marry gain some privledges above those
}rights.

While I disagree, I understand how you could look at it that way.

}There may be rational justification for the favoritism.  For instance,
}the state may have an interest in producing children for one reason or
}another (e.g. to have more 18-year-olds to serve in the armed forces).
}Promoting opposite-sex marriages may encourage childbirth.  This is a
}rational justification, though I disagree with it.  Rather than argue
}that the government should sanction same-sex marriages, I question why
}the government sanctions any marriages at all.

I would add that the state (IMO) doesn't have the right to use legislation
to encourage or discourage childbirth for it's own interests. There would
be immediate public outcry if the government legislated a maximum number
of children each family may have. The same should be true of the reverse
kind of legislation. (BTW, I don't think anyone is arguing that the
reason for the discrimination is based on the government wanting more
children to tax.)

}>}>Many states _still_ have antiquated laws on the books outlawing
}>}>'sodomy' (often including oral and manual as well as anal sex).
}>}>If you can give me _NON-religious_ reasons for this discrimination,
}>}>I will drop my claim that the government is abusing the seperation
}>}>of church and state by these practices. 
}>} 
}>}The reason may be societal.  Simply put, past U.S. society in general
}>}had sexual taboos that included these things.  Parts of that society
}>}evidently also thought their taboos should have the force of law.
}>}(Was there a religious reason for this?  I am not aware of any.)
}>}Looking back, it seems it would have been nice if there had been a
}>}"separation of sexuality and state" amendment to the Constitution.
} 
}>That would have been nice. In the mean time, since there _is_ a seperation
}>of church and state, and the current policy is a holdover from Christian
}>laws, the law should be changed to prevent this blatent discrimination.
} 
}The burden of proof would be on those who suggest that the laws must
}be religious in origin.  As I know of no Christian law which
}explicitly prohibits oral or anal sex, I think a case can be made for
}the law arising from society.

I doubt seriously that you could come up with a good reason for keeping
(making) oral sex illegal. While the bible may not specifically say
"thou wilst not stick thy husband's member in thy mouth, nor thy toungue
in thy wife's birth organ," Religion, and christianity in particular has
long been an advocate of legislated morality, espically of a sexual nature.

}(That is not to say I think the sodomy laws shouldn't be repealed; I
}just disagree with the reasons given for repealing them.  I think they
}should be repealed because they are pointless, intrusive and
				     ^^^^^^^^^
Therein lies the thrust of my argument. Any law with no 'point' other than
to enforce religous convictions is unconstitutional. I believe that I have
sufficient evidence that shows that the Christian leaders (Pat & Pat) have
used Biblical quotes to justify the laws. If there were another 'point'
other than religous enforcement, then the addition of religous approval
would be irrelevant.

}unenforceable.)
}--
}Gregg Skinner                 I do not speak for any organization.

}-IvArch->--------------------------Brett G. Lemoine-------------------->
}-Texas A&M University--------------Chemistry Department Programmer----->
}-Internet: lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu-Bitnet: lemoine@tamchem------------->
}------"A person without a god is like a fish without a skateboard."---->