Ron Paul - Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution

House Web Site ^ | 8-11-2003 | Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

[Luis Gonzalez]

The idea that consensual homosexual sex somehow relates to incest is ridiculous.

To use your own line of reasoning, since heterosexual sex has always been completely permissible, and in light of the general acceptance of fornication, why has it not led to the legalization or societal acceptance of heterosexual pedohilia or heterosexual incest?

Because they are no more related to one another than consensual homosexual sex is to the situations you keep throwing up in the air.

[inquest]

The idea that consensual homosexual sex somehow relates to incest is ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous at all. When they both entail people acting in the privacy of their homes, and (in the case of infertility) do not entail any direct violence against unconsenting third parties, then they very much fall into the same category. The only difference is in the level of revulsion society attaches to them.

To use your own line of reasoning, since heterosexual sex has always been completely permissible, and in light of the general acceptance of fornication, why has it not led to the legalization or societal acceptance of heterosexual pedohilia or heterosexual incest?

Pedophilia of course involves persons unable to give consent, and so that's totally off the topic of this discussion.

As for the remainder of the question, the reason it hasn't led to the acceptance of incest is that incest is still considered an abomination, despite the fact that fornication is generally more accepted. You have argued that that is an invalid reason to declare something illegal, like when you said that laws against sodomy must apply to heterosexual as well as homosexual sodomy - or not at all. If you believe that, then you would also have to believe that laws against extramarital sex must apply to every type of couple, not just immediate relatives. It's the same principle.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"When they both entail people acting in the privacy of their homes"

The Lawrence case was not decided on a privacy issue, but rather a equal protection under the law issue. Incest laws apply equally to everyone, there are no States that allow for heterosexual incest, but has anti-homosexual incest laws in place, so this discussion is moot.

You can argue the point all night, but in spite of the chain of red herrings you are putting up, it comes down to the same basic issue; the Texas anti-homosexual sodomy law was unconstitutional, and as such, it was struck down by the Supreme Court.

[takenoprisoner]

Well that's all real sweet us being "protected" by legislative dictate regarding private behavior.

Exactly how do you propose to enforce such a legislative enactment that is opposed to specific private behaviors between consenting adults in the privacy of their homes?

Will you send sex police over to observe their private behaviors 24/7 in their home? Will you have sex police follow them 24/7 to see that they don't have any sort of sex the legislature regards as inappropriate? Will you have cameras placed thru out their home with sex police monitoring their behavior?

What if the sex police get rumor you are participating in "inappropriate" sex? Will you allow them into your bedroom to observe your private behavior with your partner?

Have you truly given serious consideration to what you defend here?

[jwalsh07]

Peace Big Dude!

[breakem]

I've been off the more volatile threads and focusing on the recall, but I couldn't resist the shot. Best wishes and on to the california circus. C-YA

[xzins]

I repeat. It's based on two things: (1) How dangerous the illness is, and (2) How likely it is to spread.

A disease that is critically dangerous and absolutely certain to spread exponentially will, no doubt, result in a different response from the legislature than will one that is harmless and rarely communicable.

The question for the legislature is to determine when a particular disease is so far up those scales that they decide something must be done.

And if it poses a danger to me or my family, I really don't care about your privacy concerns.

[inquest]

Incest laws apply equally to everyone

Not by your stated principles they don't. They only apply to people who are in the same family. Just as anti-homosexual sodomy laws only apply to people of the same gender. There's no basic difference between the two. Both laws state that certain types of sexual combinations are illegal, even if they're engaging in acts that are legal for other types of sexual combinations.

You simply can't defend one and condemn the other on any kind of rational basis.

[Sachem]

Nowhere in the Lawrence case did Texas make any claim that the purpose of their law was related to the control of disease.

I cannot follow this public health argument in any case. Sexually transmitted diseases are more broadly spread among the 97% heterosexual population than the 3% homosexual one and Texas already has a statute criminalizing knowing transmission or its risk.

[inquest]

Sexually transmitted diseases are more broadly spread among the 97% heterosexual population than the 3% homosexual one

Source? Are you referring to overall numbers, or percentages of persons infected?

[Sachem]

Overall, as rates vary widely, of course. The pool is just larger.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"They only apply to people who are in the same family. Just as anti-homosexual sodomy laws only apply to people of the same gender. There's no basic difference between the two."

If they're not in the same family, then it wouldn't be incest, would it?

You are reaching new depths in idiocy to justify the unjustifiable.

By the way, you just tried to justify the law by arguing that it is based on gender...unconstitutional.

The only thing that can be made illegal is the act, not the gender of those engaging in the act.

The law was struck down as unconstitutional...get it?

[inquest]

If they're not in the same family, then it wouldn't be incest, would it?

And likewise, if they're not in the same gender, then it wouldn't be homosexual sodomy. If they have the power to outlaw one, they have the power to outlaw the other.

By the way, you just tried to justify the law by arguing that it is based on gender...unconstitutional.

Any more unconstitutional than basing it on family?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"And likewise, if they're not in the same gender, then it wouldn't be homosexual sodomy."

I'm tired of wasting my time with you, you're not even making any sense...not that you ever did.

Good bye.

Don't bother, I will not reply.

[inquest]

I'm tired of wasting my time with you, you're not even making any sense...not that you ever did.

The joke's on you. I was only repeating your own logic back at you.

In any case, I'm happy to let our respective statements stand.

[xzins]

The issue isn't who is or isn't infectious. The issue is whether or not the legislature has the authority to debate and decide such issues. They do.

[FreedomCalls]

Texas statutes defined sodomy as "deviant sexual intercourse", sodomy being defined as any contact between one person's anal/oral cavity, and another person's genitalia.

Where's the part about "same sex"?

[Sachem]

The issue isn't who is or isn't infectious. The issue is whether or not the legislature has the authority to debate and decide such issues. They do.

They do indeed, though as stated, Texas made no claim that its sodomy law had anything to do with control of disease.

Just as a state legislature can make a law, so the US Supreme Court, hearing a citizen's petition for relief from a usurpation of his liberty by that legislature, can find it unconstitutional and overturn it.

Forget Marbury vs. Madison or the various early judiciary acts, or Madison on the Bill of Rights, just see Federalist 78, as quoted above.

[takenoprisoner]

And if it poses a danger to me or my family,

And how could that be? Are you or a member of your family planning to have sex with them too? In that case, be sure to take protective measures.

I really don't care about your privacy concerns.

I've logged that from your posts already. However, I do care about peeping toms sticking their noses into my bedroom. While you (if we are to believe you're serious) may like to be watched, or to watch others. Which is what someone would have to do in order to enforce your legislative wet dream.

Bottomline, if I expect privacy for myself, then I must recognize it for everyone else as well. It's a well recognized concept known as "equal treatment."

[Luis Gonzalez]

That's the definition of sodomy, they went on to outlaw it for same-sex couples...did you miss that part of the Lawrence trial?