The difference between marriage and your examples come down to 2 issues. 1.) Is the right fundamental? 2.) Does the state have a compelling interest in restricting? The state doesn’t care much about S&M between consenting adults, but if someone ends up dead or crippled the other party isn’t going to be helped by showing a signed contract. The state usually doesn’t allow you to sign your fundamental right to life away–even assisted suicide is a gray area.

Marriage has no relation to the sexuality of the participants, innate or not, that’s the point.
1) Surely the right of consenting people to engage in a sex act is a fundamental right, most especially so if the desire for said sex act is innate. In all 3 examples I give this is true.
2) Well the state says they have a compelling health and moral interest in criminalizing these acts. But Lawrence vs Texas says that can be put aside even if the desire isn’t innate.

In the case of the necrophiliac the state of Nevada says it’s unlawful if any part of the his person or an object enters the “sexual orifices” of the dead body. But it perfectly legal for him to pay a mortician to do that in preparing the body for burial. Or pay a doctor to do that for the purposes of an autopsy. The only thing which makes the act illegal is that he does it and he finds it sexually gratifying. If that desire is innate what justification of the state can ever truly override that?

In the case of the person who only gets off if he is abused there is clearly no intent to cause permanent injury or death. Refusing to have sex is clear grounds for an annulment which would void any prenuptial agreement as an annulment would have the effect that no nuptial ever took place. A woman is clearly aware that the man she is marrying considers her spanking him to be an integral part of sex act. If she then refuses to spank him is a judge compelled to void this marriage, and any prenuptial along with it, even though she is perfectly willing to have intercourse with him? If his desire for abuse was innate and she knew that wouldn’t a judge be compelled to say she refuses to consummate the marriage? A fetish for Erotic asphyxiation is considered a mental disorder even though there is no intent to commit suicide. A judge can and will commit a person who is shown to act on it repeatedly. If that desire is innate can it ever possibly be described as being disordered?

With regard to “no sexual desire is innate”. It seems like most guys are naturally aroused by women, especially young attractive women, and are more excited by the prospect of orgasm with the woman than by themselves.

dedalus on May 29, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Well, it seems that most people get hungry for chocolate, especially fine Belgian chocolate, and are more exited by the prospect of eating chocolate then worms. Would you say the desire for to eat chocolate is innate but the desire to eat worms not? Or is it just the desire to eat which is innate?

All men play by the same rule…they can marry any eligible woman they want..the problem is just that gay men don’t want to marry women. That’s understandable but still there’s no equal protection issue here.

Exactly. Pretty much any man, gay or straight, can marry any woman, gay or straight. That a person chooses to be with a person of the same sex, live alone or with pets is a choice – but by definition, that’s not marriage.

BTW, “love” is not in Webster’s definition of marriage either. Nor is “sexual intercourse.” The fact that two consenting adults love each other doesn’t qualify them for the institution of marriage.

Everything that makes a marriage valuable to society is impossible to simulate with a same-sex “marriage.” And no, you being happy and fulfilled is not of any real value to society. If you need a pat on the head from the State in the form of a formal recognition of your lifestyle choice to be happy and fulfilled, you are a sick person.

spmat on May 29, 2009 at 10:48 AM

Can’t each of the gay women have children? Doesn’t that make them twice as fertile? Sure they need to get some sperm but it doesn’t seem in short supply or difficult to extract.

Everything that makes a marriage valuable to society is impossible to simulate with a same-sex “marriage.” And no, you being happy and fulfilled is not of any real value to society. If you need a pat on the head from the State in the form of a formal recognition of your lifestyle choice to be happy and fulfilled, you are a sick person.

This acts are not illegal or unenforceable because they violate anyone’s rights. They are illegal because society deems them immoral or unhealthy. How can they be either if they are innate?

…

No sexual desire is innate. Straight, gay or whatever. The desire to achieve an orgasm is innate. How we achieve that are preferences. We are no more born desiring a certain gender for a sexual partner than we are born hating spinach.

Rocks on May 29, 2009 at 1:31 AM

Essentially, I’m libertarian regarding private behavior between consenting adults.

The difference between marriage and your examples come down to 2 issues. 1.) Is the right fundamental? 2.) Does the state have a compelling interest in restricting? The state doesn’t care much about S&M between consenting adults, but if someone ends up dead or crippled the other party isn’t going to be helped by showing a signed contract. The state usually doesn’t allow you to sign your fundamental right to life away–even assisted suicided is a gray area.

With regard to “no sexual desire is innate”. It seems like most guys are naturally aroused by women, especially young attractive women, and are more excited by the prospect of orgasm with the woman than by themselves.

In a nutshell, they want the Supremes to explain why the logic of Loving v. Virginia, which struck down laws forbidding people of different races to marry, doesn’t also apply to laws forbidding people of the same sex to marry.

Here’s the difference: With interracial marriage, there is an equal protection issue. If interracial marriage is forbidden, I as a white male play by different rules than a black male. He’s allowed to marry a black woman but I’m not. You don’t have the same issue with gay marriage. All men play by the same rule…they can marry any eligible woman they want..the problem is just that gay men don’t want to marry women. That’s understandable but still there’s no equal protection issue here. The problem is that SSM supporters are trying to change the very definition of marriage and redefine it as a group right rather than an individual right.

In a nutshell, they want the Supremes to explain why the logic of Loving v. Virginia, which struck down laws forbidding people of different races to marry, doesn’t also apply to laws forbidding people of the same sex to marry.

Crack open a dictionary, jackasses. There is no mention of race in Webster’s definition, but it does include “opposite sex” and “men and women.” You’d think lawyers would be fairly anal about the meaning of words.

We’re talking apples and oranges. That is, until the apple growers, fed up with getting less for their apples than oranges fetch, and find a sympathetic judge to declare that apple growers can declare their product oranges under the banner of equal treatment.

That’s not something I’m comfortable with but I’d rather have that then not allow homosexual couples who love each other other to have the same rights as a heterosexual couple.

Proud Rino on May 28, 2009 at 8:56 PM

That’s because your’re a bigot! You know that polygamists are treated just like black were.

Yeah, it sounds just that stupid when you say it.

And to think, you can’t figure out why black people REALLY aren’t on your side with this.

Equating slavery and the civil rights movement to the fight for gay “rights”….how’s that working out?

I didn’t equate them. I responded to people who say, “marriage is between a man and a woman, and that’s how it’s always been,” without providing any other rationale, by using a couple of examples of how things used to be one way but are no longer that way. I picked two examples where I think 99.9% of people would probably agree are bad traditions.

That’s not to say that gay marriage is morally right or a greater injustice than slavery, it just means that it’s not necessarily morally wrong because it’s been “One man and one woman” for a long time, it must therefore *always* be one man and one woman.

Phil Byler on May 28, 2009 at 10:50 PM

+1

And to the poster who said that polygamy had no historic basis, that is factually incorrect. Right up to the present day. You need to hit the net and research it. Not only do some engage in that in the US, but other countries as well.

This is a reason the justices don’t want to hear this one. You can’t rule for one without the other. Not without the same kind of twisted judicial political correctness logic that made a single elective medical procedure a constitutional right over all other medical procedures (Roe v. Wade).

Black people are slaves.

Women aren’t allowed to vote.

Proud Rino on May 28, 2009 at 8:10 PM

And to think, you can’t figure out why black people REALLY aren’t on your side with this.

Equating slavery and the civil rights movement to the fight for gay “rights”….how’s that working out?

baldilocks on May 29, 2009 at 1:37 AM

While I agree that the bible does not proscribe interracial marriage the idea that Zipporah was “black” is highly debatable.

In any case it’s irrelevant to the argument. Interracial marriage was MADE illegal based on race, an immutable characteristic. What was legal for a man and a woman prior to these laws was now illegal for a man and a woman afterwords simply because their races were different. That is the essence of discrimination. Same-sex unions have never been considered as marriage or even recognized and are not made illegal by stating they are not marriage. There is no reason whatsoever for the state to be forced to use the word marriage or apply marriage laws to a same sex union as sexuality is not an immutable characteristic.
If it were you wouldn’t have so many middle aged women who suddenly discover they are lesbian soon after being dumped by the husband for a thin 23 year old. If it were how could there even be such a thing as a bisexual?

Because it is a religion, its precepts (or lack thereof) cannot be questioned or determined by the legal system.

The First Amendment prohibits government providing any benefits to sodomists. This includes laws protecting them.

They are free to practice their religion in their own churches. They are free to operate their own religious schools, paid for by their own funds.

They cannot force anyone else to do anything other than permit them to practice their religion.

Now just why do you suppose they don’t admit that sodomism is a religion?

baldilocks on May 29, 2009 at 1:40 AM

Yeah. Kinda twisted isn’t it?

baldilocks on May 29, 2009 at 1:37 AM

I’ve got two links for you bud.

“”Almighty God created the races … and he placed them on separate continents… The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia#Facts

What the Bible really says about homosexuality

A lot of the commenters here don’t like the gay/race comparison because you can choose to be openly homosexual but have no choice in determining your skin color. The problem with this argument vis-a-vis the Loving v. Virginia analogy is that you CAN choose whether you form a inter-racial couple or not. No one forced you to get involved with someone outside your race.

SDnocoen on May 29, 2009 at 1:33 AM

On that basis it is legal to stop any marriage between any man and any woman for any reason.

The whole interracial marriage bit is almost eerie to think about. Reading arguments used against it, it boggles my mind that anyone could think that way. It’s beginning to boggle young minds how anyone could see gay people that way. It doesn’t matter what clever arguments we come up with today, a young conservative is more likely than an old liberal to be pro-gay marriage. its only a matter of time.

ernesto on May 28, 2009 at 8:32 PM

Many opponents of interracial marriage have used the Bible to underscore their arguments. Apparently they don’t read the book very closely. Moses had only one wife–Zipporah–and she was black. And when Moses’s sister Miriam started talking smack about the fact that Zipporah was a Cushite, God smote Miriam with leprosy.

On the other hand, sodomy is condemned without reservation in both the Old and New Testaments. Just saying.

Defining marriage as between a man and a woman of the same race doesn’t discriminate against minorities, period.

Proud Rino on May 28, 2009 at 11:58 PM

The laws against interracial marriage were always about white supremacy and sexual jealousy. Additionally, unlike most laws, they were pulled out of thin air (like the oxymoron ‘same-sex marriage’) and were never based on the another foundational law. The proverbial emanations from penumbras, or whatever.

Is necrophilia innate? If a woman wills her body to me I can keep it and continue to have sex with it?

Rocks on May 28, 2009 at 9:43 PM

In each case it really comes down to whether you are violating the rights of another person.

Gay people already legally have sex. Marriage would recognize the exclusivity and permanence of the commitment.

dedalus on May 28, 2009 at 10:19 PM

The point is all these things were consented to by adults. No rights are being violated.

The dead woman’s consent can clearly be shown if she leaves a will which states whoever has legal possession of her body can have sex with it but it is still a felony in Nevada punishable with up to life in prison.

An adult can clearly consent to be abuse someone for a sex act but no judge is going to void a prenuptial agreement and annul a marriage on the grounds that one spouse refuses to consummate the marriage because they no longer consent to abusing someone yet consents to intercourse.

An adult can clearly consent to allow themselves to be choked but showing you have a fetish for this will not only not prevent you from being committed to an institution but will be used effect said committal.

This acts are not illegal or unenforceable because they violate anyone’s rights. They are illegal because society deems them immoral or unhealthy. How can they be either if they are innate?

If the courts were to state that legally a person’s sexuality is innate, whether it is homo or heterosexual, then it is illogical to assume necrophilia and S&M can not be innate. Why should any of the acts or provisions remain illegal, unenforceable or be classified as a sickness?

In Ohio it is a criminal act for a stepparent to have sex with their stepchild, even one who is a consenting adult. This law has been upheld in federal court. If sexuality is innate how could anyone suggest such a law is enforceable?

No sexual desire is innate. Straight, gay or whatever. The desire to achieve an orgasm is innate. How we achieve that are preferences. We are no more born desiring a certain gender for a sexual partner than we are born hating spinach.

If that is so, there is no legal reason to restrict ‘marriage’ in the least.

Another way to ask this question: what does a marriage create? It doesn’t create a relationship (in a social sense). It is (legally) a method for defining that relationship. I would argue that a marriage creates a family (even without children).

Regardless, it is a question that _needs_ to be discussed.

The pro-gay marriage view is assuming their conclusion. More specifically, there is a difference in the definitions of marriage.

Currently, marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman. Right or wrong, that is the current definition. (People who wish to change this might want to do a historical look to see if anyone has ever allowed other types of marriages. And I mean before 1970 or so. Like, did ancient Greece allow it?)

Before you can argue whether homosexuals can marry, you need to change the definition of marriage. Currently, ‘gay marriage’ is a logical contradiction. If we enumerate the terms of the current definition of marriage, we see that:

1) It is between 2 people.
2) The people must be of opposite gender. (This is equivalent, by 1), to saying that there must be one male and one female.)
3) Certain issues of consanguinity must be met.
4) The people must be of the age of consent.

As far as I know, pro-gay marriage people want to eliminate 2) without touching any of the others. The question that then must be asked is what argument would you use to defend the then-current definition of marriage (which, apparently, you’re happy with) when another group seeks to amend a term.

This is the reason people bring up polygamy and other issues. _Particularly_ when you use a legal argument that says that the current definition is too restrictive (which is what a ‘civil rights’ argument is), then you can use a similar argument on any of the terms.