Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[The Rabbi]

You said other than the legitimate argument what is another legitimate argument. Your statement was silly. It seemed as if you wanted to refute the legitimate argument by eliminating it from the discussion.

Now you are bragging about your math skills, in some apparent attempt to use the odds of harm as a means to avoid the law. What is your point? That we should be allowed to jay walk since the odds of harm are low?

I did no such thing, I asked you to explain why your misunderstanding of the term inbred makes it legitimate to deny people marraige when it is legal for people with obvious genetic defects to get married and have children.

1) You did not ask that question. But it is funny
2) I'm fairly familiar with the term inbred. Which definition are you using as evidence of your misunderstanding of my statements?
3) Your strawman about refusing an inbred's right to life and liberty based solely on the laws meant to stop incestuous marriages ... lol that's funny too.

I would have thought that your inability to defend your irrational position would have ended your participation in thsi discussion. I can see you really are a half wit.

There is no legitimate basis for denying 'equal marriage rights" to any two or more people who demand them once you legalize gay marriage. All the arguments for gay marriage apply equally to the other cases. There is no logical basis to discriminate. The genetic argument is a red herring, as I and otjhers have shown.

 

[RKMBrown]

I posted a link about a father/daughter incest relationship earlier. Feel free to go read it and point out what harm was caused.

Already stated dozens of times. The harm is caused to the inbred child.

You cannot say that unless you can point to said inbred child.

By the way, inbreeding occurs when a gene pool is too small, and takes generations to occur. It doesn't happen simply because cousins, or even siblings, have sex. Also, it is just as likely that any child of siblings would have a positive trait reinforced as a negative one.

I was not referring to small gene pool problems, I was referring to laws against incest as brought up in the OP.

 

[Seawytch]

It's really simple...with or without the SCOTUS ruling on whether the right to legally marry is extended to gay couples, polygamists or siblings can sue to legally marry. With or without allowing gay couples equal access to legal marriage, those opposed to these couplings must, using a reasonable person standard, be able to identify a societal harm in allowing them.

It has nothing to do with gays and everything to do with the 14th Amendment...the original "slippery slope".

 

[JakeStarkey]

Try again. Both cause injury. Thus not a false derivative analogy.

You have a very stupid derivative analogy. You yelling at your family members causes injuries. Difference of kind not degree.

Very, very stupid RKM. Try again.

Just because you do not understand a thing does not make the person you are disagreeing with stupid.?

One, look up derivative analogy.

Two, look up difference of degree and difference of kind.

Three, come back with something that shows the rest of us you understand what you are trying to discuss.

 

[RKMBrown]

I did no such thing, I asked you to explain why your misunderstanding of the term inbred makes it legitimate to deny people marraige when it is legal for people with obvious genetic defects to get married and have children.

1) You did not ask that question. But it is funny
2) I'm fairly familiar with the term inbred. Which definition are you using as evidence of your misunderstanding of my statements?
3) Your strawman about refusing an inbred's right to life and liberty based solely on the laws meant to stop incestuous marriages ... lol that's funny too.

I would have thought that your inability to defend your irrational position would have ended your participation in thsi discussion. I can see you really are a half wit.

There is no legitimate basis for denying 'equal marriage rights" to any two or more people who demand them once you legalize gay marriage. All the arguments for gay marriage apply equally to the other cases. There is no logical basis to discriminate. The genetic argument is a red herring, as I and otjhers have shown.

Where have you shown the genetic argument against incest is a red herring? Link?

 

[RKMBrown]

You have a very stupid derivative analogy. You yelling at your family members causes injuries. Difference of kind not degree.

Very, very stupid RKM. Try again.

Just because you do not understand a thing does not make the person you are disagreeing with stupid.?

One, look up derivative analogy.

Two, look up difference of degree and difference of kind.

Three, come back with something that shows the rest of us you understand what you are trying to discuss.

Look up the term false. You appear to not understand the phrase "is not a false derivative analogy." Hint... look up double negative.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Do you honestly believe that there are not people out there who want incestuous marriages? Polygamous marriages? And so forth?

And if they do, so what? Why shouldn't they be allowed to do so? It's their life. If one man wants to marry four women and everyone in this union enters in voluntarily then what's the problem. More power to him. Only a nut job would want multiple wives in my opinion. I couldn't handle the one I had. Can't imagine four.

 

[Seawytch]

Do you honestly believe that there are not people out there who want incestuous marriages? Polygamous marriages? And so forth?

And if they do, so what? Why shouldn't they be allowed to do so? It's their life. If one man wants to marry four women and everyone in this union enters in voluntarily then what's the problem. More power to him. Only a nut job would want multiple wives in my opinion. I couldn't handle the one I had. Can't imagine four.

Why does it always have to be a man and multiple women?

Just more misogyny...

 

[RKMBrown]

It's really simple...with or without the SCOTUS ruling on whether the right to legally marry is extended to gay couples, polygamists or siblings can sue to legally marry. With or without allowing gay couples equal access to legal marriage, those opposed to these couplings must, using a reasonable person standard, be able to identify a societal harm in allowing them.

It has nothing to do with gays and everything to do with the 14th Amendment...the original "slippery slope".

Ding ding ding... along with the due process clause of the 14th, the federal government can and will use the law to take your rights as long as they can prove there would be societal harm if they don't.

 

[The Rabbi]

Do you honestly believe that there are not people out there who want incestuous marriages? Polygamous marriages? And so forth?

And if they do, so what? Why shouldn't they be allowed to do so? It's their life. If one man wants to marry four women and everyone in this union enters in voluntarily then what's the problem. More power to him. Only a nut job would want multiple wives in my opinion. I couldn't handle the one I had. Can't imagine four.

When marriage means whatever someone wants it to mean then it ceases to have any meaning.

 

[The Rabbi]

1) You did not ask that question. But it is funny
2) I'm fairly familiar with the term inbred. Which definition are you using as evidence of your misunderstanding of my statements?
3) Your strawman about refusing an inbred's right to life and liberty based solely on the laws meant to stop incestuous marriages ... lol that's funny too.

I would have thought that your inability to defend your irrational position would have ended your participation in thsi discussion. I can see you really are a half wit.

There is no legitimate basis for denying 'equal marriage rights" to any two or more people who demand them once you legalize gay marriage. All the arguments for gay marriage apply equally to the other cases. There is no logical basis to discriminate. The genetic argument is a red herring, as I and otjhers have shown.

Where have you shown the genetic argument against incest is a red herring? Link?

Scroll back through here. I and others have schooled you on this.
We don't prohibit other people from marrying on the basis of possible genetic outcomes. This shoudl be no differennt.

 

[RKMBrown]

I would have thought that your inability to defend your irrational position would have ended your participation in thsi discussion. I can see you really are a half wit.

There is no legitimate basis for denying 'equal marriage rights" to any two or more people who demand them once you legalize gay marriage. All the arguments for gay marriage apply equally to the other cases. There is no logical basis to discriminate. The genetic argument is a red herring, as I and otjhers have shown.

Where have you shown the genetic argument against incest is a red herring? Link?

Scroll back through here. I and others have schooled you on this.
We don't prohibit other people from marrying on the basis of possible genetic outcomes. This shoudl be no differennt.

>>> Scroll back through here. I and others have schooled you on this.

Bull shit.

>>> We don't prohibit other people from marrying on the basis of possible genetic outcomes.

That's because other people are not in incestuous relationships. Are you daft?

>>> This shoudl be no differennt.

Based on what? Your opinion? Your lie that someone has been schooled?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Do you honestly believe that there are not people out there who want incestuous marriages? Polygamous marriages? And so forth?

And if they do, so what? Why shouldn't they be allowed to do so? It's their life. If one man wants to marry four women and everyone in this union enters in voluntarily then what's the problem. More power to him. Only a nut job would want multiple wives in my opinion. I couldn't handle the one I had. Can't imagine four.

Why does it always have to be a man and multiple women?

Just more misogyny...

It doesn’t, but that’s the typical configuration.

Seemingly lost, likely intentionally, among this nonsense about plural marriage and incest is the simple fact that marriage law in all 50 states has for well over a generation been able to accommodate same-sex couples, as those laws sanction a union between two equal adult partners.

That’s why it’s nonsense to refer to ‘gay marriage,’ as there is no such thing. The same is true with regard to ignorant remarks about ‘redefining marriage,’ just as it’s nonsense to claim same-sex couples are seeking ‘special rights,’ or ‘new rights,’ nothing could be further from the truth.

Laws prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying are idiocy not only because there’s no legitimate, compelling justification for these laws to exist, but because they seek to prohibit a class of persons from entering into a contractual obligation both parties can meet in good faith, with the terms and stipulations of the marriage contract unaltered and unchanged – that’s not the case with plural marriage and incestuous marriage.

 

[The Rabbi]

Where have you shown the genetic argument against incest is a red herring? Link?

Scroll back through here. I and others have schooled you on this.
We don't prohibit other people from marrying on the basis of possible genetic outcomes. This shoudl be no differennt.

>>> Scroll back through here. I and others have schooled you on this.

Bull shit.

>>> We don't prohibit other people from marrying on the basis of possible genetic outcomes.

That's because other people are not in incestuous relationships. Are you daft?

>>> This shoudl be no differennt.

Based on what? Your opinion? Your lie that someone has been schooled?

Wow, you really are that stupid that you cannot grasp a pretty simple point.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is it also meaningless when the singles out one type of killing to define as murder? Isn't the purpose of defining something to make it easier to distinguish it from everything else? If defining something actually means making it less exclusive couldn't we just use one word for everything?

Personally personally personally personally personally personally personally personally personally personally, personally personally personally personally personally personally personally personally personally personally. Personally personally personally personally personally personally?

personally personally personally personally personally personally personally personally personally

See the problem?

Given that monogamy and polygamy have co-existed for years, how is it more meaningful, or more accurate in terms of definition,

to arbitrarily decide that the word 'marriage' only means 'one man one woman'?

People accuse the same sex marriage advocates of trying to 'redefine marriage'.

Wasn't marriage 'redefined' when governments in this country decided that for legal purposes of marital recognition, the word 'marriage' would only mean one man one woman?

Did I say that?

They are redefining marriage, you just don't want to admit it.

You don't want to admit that defining marriage as one man one woman was the original 'redefining' of marriage in this country.

 

[g5000]

My guess is that the normal suspects won't do any research before they comment on this.

When it comes to marriage, the fundamental rights claims and the equal protection arguments often intertwine. For example, Justice Kennedy’s opinion last month striking down a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act said that DOMA’s injection of “inequality into the United States Code” violated the “liberty” protected by the Constitution. The “inequality” part is equal protection language; the “liberty” wording is fundamental rights stuff. The analytical box is not all that important. What it boils down to is that when the government wants to exclude groups from something important like marriage, it has to show good reasons for the exclusion. And prejudice—simply thinking something is “icky”—doesn’t count as a reason.
The arguments supporters of same-sex marriage have made in court do not sufficiently distinguish marriage for lesbians and gay men from other possible claimants to the marriage right. If marriage is about the ability to define one’s own family, what’s the argument against allowing brothers and sisters (or first cousins) to wed? If liberty protects, as Kennedy wrote ten years ago in Lawrence v. Texas, the case striking down Texas’s anti-sodomy law, the “right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,” why can’t people in polyamorous relationships claim that right as well? If it’s wrong to exclude groups because of prejudice, are we sure the uneasiness most of us feel about those who love more than one, or love one of their own, shouldn't count as prejudice?
In private conversations with leaders in the marriage movement, I often hear two responses. The first is that there is no political energy behind a fight for incestuous or polygamous marriages. The second is that they would be fine if those restrictions fell as well but, in effect, “don’t quote me on that.” The first of these responses, of course, is a political response but not a legal one. The second is to concede the point, with hopes that they won't have to come out of the closet on the concession until more same-sex victories are won in political and legal arenas.
Can we do better? What are the possible distinctions?

The Slippery Slope to Polygamy and Incest

For the intelligent people, Greenfield is a liberal law professor that actually supports same sex marraige.

Kent Greenfield - Boston College

I have bolded and enlarged the false premise upon which the doofus's entire argument collapses. The idiot conveniently omitted the part in the Lawrence decision which states you cannot exclude a marriage based on nothing more than irrational prejudices. Excluding an incestuous marriage has a rational basis. Excluding same sex marriage does not.

Put down the GOD HATES FAGS sign and go home, losers, or the next thing you know you are going to find yourselves blaming homos for the price of gas. That's how stupid your desperation is making you look.

 

[Derideo_Te]

My guess is that the normal suspects won't do any research before they comment on this.

When it comes to marriage, the fundamental rights claims and the equal protection arguments often intertwine. For example, Justice Kennedy’s opinion last month striking down a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act said that DOMA’s injection of “inequality into the United States Code” violated the “liberty” protected by the Constitution. The “inequality” part is equal protection language; the “liberty” wording is fundamental rights stuff. The analytical box is not all that important. What it boils down to is that when the government wants to exclude groups from something important like marriage, it has to show good reasons for the exclusion. And prejudice—simply thinking something is “icky”—doesn’t count as a reason.
The arguments supporters of same-sex marriage have made in court do not sufficiently distinguish marriage for lesbians and gay men from other possible claimants to the marriage right. If marriage is about the ability to define one’s own family, what’s the argument against allowing brothers and sisters (or first cousins) to wed? If liberty protects, as Kennedy wrote ten years ago in Lawrence v. Texas, the case striking down Texas’s anti-sodomy law, the “right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,” why can’t people in polyamorous relationships claim that right as well? If it’s wrong to exclude groups because of prejudice, are we sure the uneasiness most of us feel about those who love more than one, or love one of their own, shouldn't count as prejudice?
In private conversations with leaders in the marriage movement, I often hear two responses. The first is that there is no political energy behind a fight for incestuous or polygamous marriages. The second is that they would be fine if those restrictions fell as well but, in effect, “don’t quote me on that.” The first of these responses, of course, is a political response but not a legal one. The second is to concede the point, with hopes that they won't have to come out of the closet on the concession until more same-sex victories are won in political and legal arenas.
Can we do better? What are the possible distinctions?

The Slippery Slope to Polygamy and Incest

For the intelligent people, Greenfield is a liberal law professor that actually supports same sex marraige.

Kent Greenfield - Boston College

I have bolded and enlarged the false premise upon which the doofus's entire argument collapses. The idiot conveniently omitted the part in the Lawrence decision which states you cannot exclude a marriage based on nothing more than irrational prejudices. Excluding an incestuous marriage has a rational basis. Excluding same sex marriage does not.

Put down the GOD HATES FAGS sign and go home, losers, or the next thing you know you are going to find yourselves blaming homos for the price of gas. That's how stupid your desperation is making you look.

Probably afraid that if gay married couples move into his neighborhood he won't be able to afford to live there anymore because property prices will rise and so will his taxes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Given that monogamy and polygamy have co-existed for years, how is it more meaningful, or more accurate in terms of definition,

to arbitrarily decide that the word 'marriage' only means 'one man one woman'?

People accuse the same sex marriage advocates of trying to 'redefine marriage'.

Wasn't marriage 'redefined' when governments in this country decided that for legal purposes of marital recognition, the word 'marriage' would only mean one man one woman?

Did I say that?

They are redefining marriage, you just don't want to admit it.

How specifically are they redefining YOUR marriage?

How, specifically, did you graduate first grade after 12 years?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You said other than the legitimate argument what is another legitimate argument. Your statement was silly. It seemed as if you wanted to refute the legitimate argument by eliminating it from the discussion.

Now you are bragging about your math skills, in some apparent attempt to use the odds of harm as a means to avoid the law. What is your point? That we should be allowed to jay walk since the odds of harm are low?

It's possible that the genetic argument is 'legitimate', but still, if the use of that argument is to deny a right to only one set of individuals to whom that argument might apply,

i.e., singling out incest, constitutes a violation of their right to equal protection under the law,

since it does not apply similar prohibitions to similar groups.

Yes, "singling out incest" would on first blush appear to constitute "a violation of their right to equal protection under the law." However, the due process clause allows said violation. Sucks, but that's what the due process clause is for.

No it doesn't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You said other than the legitimate argument what is another legitimate argument. Your statement was silly. It seemed as if you wanted to refute the legitimate argument by eliminating it from the discussion.

Now you are bragging about your math skills, in some apparent attempt to use the odds of harm as a means to avoid the law. What is your point? That we should be allowed to jay walk since the odds of harm are low?

I did no such thing, I asked you to explain why your misunderstanding of the term inbred makes it legitimate to deny people marraige when it is legal for people with obvious genetic defects to get married and have children.

1) You did not ask that question. But it is funny
2) I'm fairly familiar with the term inbred. Which definition are you using as evidence of your misunderstanding of my statements?
3) Your strawman about refusing an inbred's right to life and liberty based solely on the laws meant to stop incestuous marriages ... lol that's funny too.

I did ask that question, and you said you didn't know why.