Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[Yurt]

Gee, some of us here have been saying exactly that only to be derided.

When "marriage" means whatever anyone wants it to mean then it has no meaning at all.

marriage means only one thing:

a legal contract to marry

as such...any legal consensual relationship should not be denied marriage status

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Since I wrote the OP I can state categorically that you missed the whole point that the professor was making.

Think of the Children!

This argument is more relevant to incest than polygamy. Incest raises the risk of birth defects, or so we’ve been told. But the risks are reportedly small, and probably less than for parents over forty, or smokers, or those with certain hereditary diseases. If the government stepped in to regulate the decisions of potential parents on those grounds, we’d rightly dust off our “nanny state” bromides. This is the kind of thing we usually leave for people to decide for themselves. Here, too, the argument that marriage is about protecting the children sounds eerily familiar to the arguments trotted out against same-sex couples for years. And even if we wanted to intervene to protect the potential offspring of incestuous couples, there are things we could do (mandatory genetic counseling, for example) short of outright bans on their marriages.

The point he, and I, am trying to make is that you have to come up with better arguments than the standard ones you have, yet you keep trotting out the same idiotic argument, even after you admit that you have no explanation as to people with higher risk of passing on deleterious traits are allowed to reproduce without regulation.

Keep swinging though, sooner or later you will realize that you can't hit a fastball with a ping pong paddle.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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".

It is really simple, you are still missing the point

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's been almost 100 years since we gave women the right to vote.

How come children and dogs aren't voting by now?

 

[The Rabbi]

Gee, some of us here have been saying exactly that only to be derided.

When "marriage" means whatever anyone wants it to mean then it has no meaning at all.

marriage means only one thing:

a legal contract to marry

as such...any legal consensual relationship should not be denied marriage status

That's circular reasoning. Marriage is more than a contract. Ask any homo. They were offered a "domestic partnership" that would deal with real issues that come up. But they derided that as "second class citizen" status. If marriage were only a consensual contract they should have been fine with it.

 

[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.

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

In this country? Really? Can you show me a time in the history of the US where same sex marriages was the norm?

 

[rdean]

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

We know many right wingers want to sleep with their sisters. They like the thrill of it being "illegal". I think it's disgusting. But without that, how many wouldn't be here today?

 

[The Rabbi]

It's been almost 100 years since we gave women the right to vote.

How come children and dogs aren't voting by now?

Well they are. 18 year olds were considered children in 1920. And dogs are eligible to vote in any Democrat-dominated district.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

What is the rational basis for prohibiting an incestuous marraige? Keep in mind that, statistically, a mother over the age of 40 who smokes and has Tay-Sachs is perfectly free to get married and have children even though she is more likely to produce a child with genetic problems than most siblings while you try to explain it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The norm, my reactionary friends, is what We the People and the SCOTUS determine what the norm is and its context. That some of you don't like how marriage is evolving remains unimportant.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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



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.

Did either of you read the part of my OP about the usual suspects?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

In this country? Really? Can you show me a time in the history of the US where same sex marriages was the norm?

De facto same sex marriage has always been around. I doubt there's anyone on this board who doesn't know some gay couple from their past who were living as a married couple.

 

[JakeStarkey]

QWB and the other socons are beginning to realize that Euro-centric protestant traditionalism is waning.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

We know many right wingers want to sleep with their sisters. They like the thrill of it being "illegal". I think it's disgusting. But without that, how many wouldn't be here today?

Every time you post something like this I think of the picture you posted of yourself looking just like all those WalMart people you say you hate.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

In this country? Really? Can you show me a time in the history of the US where same sex marriages was the norm?

De facto same sex marriage has always been around. I doubt there's anyone on this board who doesn't know some gay couple from their past who were living as a married couple.

I know plenty of gay couples that lived as roommates.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QWB and the other socons are beginning to realize that Euro-centric protestant traditionalism is waning.

Quite a few European countries have made incest legal.

 

[JakeStarkey]

QWB and the other socons are beginning to realize that Euro-centric protestant traditionalism is waning.

Quite a few European countries have made incest legal.

Proof, please, and then compare any instances with similar laws in America. You may begin with TN and UT.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QWB and the other socons are beginning to realize that Euro-centric protestant traditionalism is waning.

Quite a few European countries have made incest legal.

Proof, please, and then compare any instances with similar laws in America. You may begin with TN and UT.

Go back and read my posts in this thread, I already provided a list of countries that have legal incest. If you want to compare them to anything, feel free.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In this country? Really? Can you show me a time in the history of the US where same sex marriages was the norm?

De facto same sex marriage has always been around. I doubt there's anyone on this board who doesn't know some gay couple from their past who were living as a married couple.

I know plenty of gay couples that lived as roommates.

Unless you believe that there is no such thing as marriage except civil marriage then you have to acknowledge that same sex marriage has its own legitimate history among the other forms of marriage.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

De facto same sex marriage has always been around. I doubt there's anyone on this board who doesn't know some gay couple from their past who were living as a married couple.

I know plenty of gay couples that lived as roommates.

Unless you believe that there is no such thing as marriage except civil marriage then you have to acknowledge that same sex marriage has its own legitimate history among the other forms of marriage.

Newsflash, I believe that, but that does not force me to lie that it is true.