A Conservative for Gay Marriage

This "ridiculous line of thought" figures in the 2003 dissenting opinion of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in the Lawrence vs. Texas ruling that overturned all remaining state sodomy laws. The ruling can be read here. Scalia cites the legalization of polygamy, incest, and bestiality as likely outcomes of the Lawrence decision, since there would no longer be a basis in law for prohibiting them.

Events since Scalia's dissent vindicate his position. For example, a Jeff Jacoby editorial in the Boston Globe cites current cases challenging bans on incest here in the U.S. Already, according to Jacoby, incest is legal in Belgium, Holland, and France. Turns out Scalia wasn't ridiculous, just prescient.

I've attempted unsuccessfully to fix that first link, which is broken. Google "scalia dissent lawrence vs. texas" to read his opinion.

That was very excellent, Dennis. Thank you for pointing me to that link.

Manchester2- How does Adam & Steve = Lolita or Warren Jeffs? It doesn't. Let's be frank here. And where did Justice Scalia come by his wondrous powers of prophecy? Time-traveling? Or is he just so awesome that he's psychic? Tell me, how can you make the leap from "two homosexuals marrying" to "polygamy, incest, and bestiality"? It can't be a leap of faith, because I have faith, and there's no way I can make that leap. It can't be logic, because that doesn't make any logical sense. Tell me, how does one get to that conclusion? Because I have to admit- I'm baffled.

The link is simply that humans learn socially and sexuality is not genetic, it is imprinted in puberty with rare exceptions. Farmers and ranchers know and depend on this fact to mold certain sexual behaviors at the onset of puberty in certain animals, particularly stud animals.

Child molesters were made not from a natural attraction to children, but from being inappropriately approached themselves in youth and having "sex between adults and children as love" immutably imprinted on them.

If we hold high the deviant example of sexualtiy as for pleasure only, instead of for procreation and pleasure between men and women, the potential for imprinting this "social lesson" is dire. Gays, once imprinted at puberty are no more capable of changing their preference than a gosling can having falsely identified 'mommy" as the rancher it first saw when it was hatched. So we shouldn't hate or descriminate against gays in day to day life. But we also should not hold their condition up to be emulated or socially followed as "normal". Sex originated for procreating young. The pleasureable nerve endings leading to all sorts of variations on that original plan may not be in the best interest of humanity to normalize..

Above all we need to thoroughly understand the nature of sexuality as imprinted in puberty vs the assumed "genetic" drive. Homosexuals are correct that their preference is no longer their choice. But it was once. Frustration, shyness or inappropriate contact from an adult are the likely culprits that set their "preference" in stone. So we should not hate or treat gays poorly.

PattonGuy, the original post by Dennis cited another blog that called the polygamy/bestiality arguments "ridiculous." My post underscores that - whether you accept Scalia's arguments or not - they provide distinguished precedent for making said arguments. Jacoby's facts on other countries that have now legalized incest lend weight to Scalia's concerns. Sometimes "slipper slope" is a logical fallacy; other times, it's as accurate as today's headlines.

uh, that's "slippery slope" -- not sure what a "slipper slope" is! : - )

@manchester2: "Events since Scalia's dissent vindicate his position. For example, a Jeff Jacoby editorial in the Boston Globe cites current cases challenging bans on incest here in the U.S. Already, according to Jacoby, incest is legal in Belgium, Holland, and France. Turns out Scalia wasn't ridiculous, just prescient."

If Scalia was prescient, it's a new definition of the word. Contrary to the tone of your inflamatory statement, France, Holland, and Belgium legalized incest two hundred years ago. I don't think Scalia is that old, and I know that Lawrence wasn't argued that long ago. For the record, thank Napoleon for doing away with incest laws in Europe.

As for the editorial from Jacobs, he needs a fact-checker. He writes: "For more than 3,000 years, a code of conduct stretching back to Sinai has kept incest unconditionally beyond the pale." That's just stupid. Not only are France, Holland, and Belgium on the list as allowing incest, but so is Israel - that country in the Sinai to which he so blithely refers.

Also predating the Lawrence case was legalized bestiality in Finland, Denmark, Holland, Germany, and elsewhere. Polygyny - having multiple wives - has long been the law of the land in much of the world.

I'll go on the record against legalized incest, bestiality, and polygamy. But,come one, if you can't make an honest case, then perhaps it is simply best to shut up.

Thurman Hart,

Care to provide a few links to back up your statements? I'd be happy to read them, and if he's wrong, I'll say as much. Fair enough.

Re: Incest in France - http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4799115&p... - "If the couple moved to France, where Napoleon abolished incest laws nearly 200 years ago, their relationship wouldn't be criminal."

Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/128901.html "Napoleon abolished France's incest laws in 1810. Neither is it a crime in the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium, Portugal or Turkey. Japan, Argentina and Brazil have also legalised it in recent years."

Bestiality laws: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/sex13.htm "Canada: C YES Criminal Code of Canada Approx 10 years
Section 153
Denmark: W NONE
Finland: W NONE - -
New Zealand: C YES Crimes Act of 1964 Maximum 7 years PT
Section 143 & 144
Switzerland: W NONE"

Thanks.