From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: A question
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 17:54:41 GMT

(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.

> 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.

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.

>}>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.

(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
unenforceable.)
--
Gregg Skinner                 I do not speak for any organization.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism