Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Are you making the catch-22 argument that since society for a long time has never allowed to be legally recognized as marriages same sex relationships that in every way functioned as marriages,

therefore same sex couples have no claim to marriage equality because there have never been same sex marriages?

I am making the point that I understand the difference between belief and evidence.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Your affirmative duty requires you to do that, not me.

This is a point that is fail for you. No one will require you, much less permit you, to marry your sister or daughter.

Now, go to, fellow, and stop making a laughingstock of yourself.

I don't have any affirmative duty to you because I never agreed to a contract.

 

[Freewill]

"I am a conservative BUT I want to use the power of government over the individual, even though the Constitution specifically demands I not do it, to tell gay folks they can not marry and make the decision on who can "legally" get an abortion and who can not."

We now have wannabe "conservatives" that want the United States Constitution, a document FOUNDED ON THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL, to tell people what THEY CAN NOT DO, instead of supporting The United States Constitution WHICH ALWAYS TELLS GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CAN NOT DO.

The modern day religious right "conservative" has no understanding of the Constitution and the rights of the INDIVIDUAL.

To date NO ONE has stated how IN ANY WAY gay marriage changes the definition OF THEIR MARRIAGE.

Because that is a lame and bogus BULL SHIT excuse for an "argument".
If we can not defend the rights of those we may despise the most then we are nothing other than MILK WEAK PUSSIES.

There is nothing in law that tells a person, RIGHT NOW and before, that they can not marry.

 

[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".

It is really simple, you are still missing the point

Might help if you had one...still waiting.

 

[Gadawg73]

"I am a conservative BUT I want to use the power of government over the individual, even though the Constitution specifically demands I not do it, to tell gay folks they can not marry and make the decision on who can "legally" get an abortion and who can not."

We now have wannabe "conservatives" that want the United States Constitution, a document FOUNDED ON THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL, to tell people what THEY CAN NOT DO, instead of supporting The United States Constitution WHICH ALWAYS TELLS GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CAN NOT DO.

The modern day religious right "conservative" has no understanding of the Constitution and the rights of the INDIVIDUAL.

To date NO ONE has stated how IN ANY WAY gay marriage changes the definition OF THEIR MARRIAGE.

Because that is a lame and bogus BULL SHIT excuse for an "argument".
If we can not defend the rights of those we may despise the most then we are nothing other than MILK WEAK PUSSIES.

There is nothing in law that tells a person, RIGHT NOW and before, that they can not marry.

You dodge the subject like a monkey on fire.
You left out "someone of the same sex"
Conveniently.
Who are you trying to shit?

 

[Gadawg73]

"I am a conservative BUT I want to use the power of government over the individual, even though the Constitution specifically demands I not do it, to tell gay folks they can not marry and make the decision on who can "legally" get an abortion and who can not."

We now have wannabe "conservatives" that want the United States Constitution, a document FOUNDED ON THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL, to tell people what THEY CAN NOT DO, instead of supporting The United States Constitution WHICH ALWAYS TELLS GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CAN NOT DO.

The modern day religious right "conservative" has no understanding of the Constitution and the rights of the INDIVIDUAL.

To date NO ONE has stated how IN ANY WAY gay marriage changes the definition OF THEIR MARRIAGE.

Because that is a lame and bogus BULL SHIT excuse for an "argument".
If we can not defend the rights of those we may despise the most then we are nothing other than MILK WEAK PUSSIES.

There is nothing in law that tells a person, RIGHT NOW and before, that they can not marry.

How many states have Constitutional Amendments BANNING SAME SEX MARRIAGE?
That is "nothing in law"?

 

[Seawytch]

OK, if we can redefine marriage for between a man and a man then what right does the state to say a man can't marry more then one woman? What is the basis for the prohibition? Why do most folks think less of a man who marries more then one woman then a man who sodomizes his mate? After that why does the state limit marriage at all? Why can't two siblings marry? What right does the state have to stop it? Old enough to bleed old enough to breed...what the hell is the purpose of laws setting an age limits? Can't legislate morality, so I have been told, then what is the purpose of marriage laws in the first place?

I think the slippery slope argument is quite right. What right does a gay person have to tell a person they can't marry their daughter?

Reasonable person standards and demonstration of societal harm. That's it. That's all that is required.

Using a reasonable person standard, can you describe a societal harm in allowing XXXX marriages.

This question applies to XXXX marriages in and of themselves without regard to each other.

 

[Freewill]

"I am a conservative BUT I want to use the power of government over the individual, even though the Constitution specifically demands I not do it, to tell gay folks they can not marry and make the decision on who can "legally" get an abortion and who can not."

We now have wannabe "conservatives" that want the United States Constitution, a document FOUNDED ON THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL, to tell people what THEY CAN NOT DO, instead of supporting The United States Constitution WHICH ALWAYS TELLS GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CAN NOT DO.

The modern day religious right "conservative" has no understanding of the Constitution and the rights of the INDIVIDUAL.

To date NO ONE has stated how IN ANY WAY gay marriage changes the definition OF THEIR MARRIAGE.

Because that is a lame and bogus BULL SHIT excuse for an "argument".
If we can not defend the rights of those we may despise the most then we are nothing other than MILK WEAK PUSSIES.

There is nothing in law that tells a person, RIGHT NOW and before, that they can not marry.

You dodge the subject like a monkey on fire.
You left out "someone of the same sex"
Conveniently.
Who are you trying to shit?

I didn't leave it out it never was in the definition of marriage. Are you saying there are people prohibited from getting married TODAY? Well yes there are, too young, related, etc. So yes the definition of marriage has to be changed. If changed for gays why not for those related?

 

[Gadawg73]

There is nothing in law that tells a person, RIGHT NOW and before, that they can not marry.

You dodge the subject like a monkey on fire.
You left out "someone of the same sex"
Conveniently.
Who are you trying to shit?

I didn't leave it out it never was in the definition of marriage. Are you saying there are people prohibited from getting married TODAY? Well yes there are, too young, related, etc. So yes the definition of marriage has to be changed. If changed for gays why not for those related?

Show me ONE HETEROSEXUAL COUPLE that had their definition of marriage changed in the states that now have legal gay marriages.
JUST ONE.
If you have none then hang up your nonsense about the "redefinition of marriage."
Please point to the law in those states where it is legal now and show us where heterosexual couples have had their marriages redefined "for those related".

All you offer are "ifs", "maybes" and "could be".
Nothing of any substance based on facts.
But I am a patient man. Why not just admit you oppose gay marriage and be done with it. You support government defining for you what your religious beliefs are.
To hell with the Constitution and the rights of the individual.
You are a closet liberal.

 

[Seawytch]

There is nothing in law that tells a person, RIGHT NOW and before, that they can not marry.

No, you're correct, it doesn't say you can't marry...someone you don't want to marry, are not attracted to and do not wish to create a partnership with.

Just like blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites. Argument tried and failed.

 

[Gadawg73]

I have been married for 37 years to the same woman. We have 3 grown kids.
Show me how gay marriage affects MY marriage, ANYONE'S MARRIAGE and how it has redefined MY MARRIAGE.
OR ANYONE'S MARRIAGE.

 

[Gadawg73]

Constitutional Amendments in many states specifically PROHIBIT gay marriage.
And we have con men here that claim that the law does not prohibit folks from getting married.

 

[The Rabbi]

"I am a conservative BUT I want to use the power of government over the individual, even though the Constitution specifically demands I not do it, to tell gay folks they can not marry and make the decision on who can "legally" get an abortion and who can not."

We now have wannabe "conservatives" that want the United States Constitution, a document FOUNDED ON THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL, to tell people what THEY CAN NOT DO, instead of supporting The United States Constitution WHICH ALWAYS TELLS GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CAN NOT DO.

The modern day religious right "conservative" has no understanding of the Constitution and the rights of the INDIVIDUAL.

To date NO ONE has stated how IN ANY WAY gay marriage changes the definition OF THEIR MARRIAGE.

Because that is a lame and bogus BULL SHIT excuse for an "argument".
If we can not defend the rights of those we may despise the most then we are nothing other than MILK WEAK PUSSIES.

There is nothing in law that tells a person, RIGHT NOW and before, that they can not marry.

How many states have Constitutional Amendments BANNING SAME SEX MARRIAGE?
That is "nothing in law"?

No state bans gay marriage. My state, TN, defines marriage as between one man and one woman. That doesnt mean two faygolas can't go get hitched and live together. No state police officer is going to haul people off to jail because they put a piece of paper on the wall.

 

[Gadawg73]

All the problems we have in the world and knuckleheads are worried about gay folk getting married.
About as stupid as it ever gets.
"Because they are redefining marriage"
HAHAHAHA, panties in a wad over that and lobby for Constitutional Amendments to ban it.
We are a nation of village idiots.
No one with any sense gives a shit about gay marriage. "God told me not to accept it" does not work anymore sports fans.
Get over it. Gay folk are different than us and they happen to fall in love with folk of the same sex.
If you do not like it then stay the hell out of their business.
HELLO, THERE ARE GAY FOLK IN YOUR FAMILY TOO.

 

[The Rabbi]

There is nothing in law that tells a person, RIGHT NOW and before, that they can not marry.

No, you're correct, it doesn't say you can't marry...someone you don't want to marry, are not attracted to and do not wish to create a partnership with.

Just like blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites. Argument tried and failed.

Bzzt. Another failed attempt at appropriating the mantle of civil rights. Which group in CA was most opposed to gay marriage?

 

[The Rabbi]

All the problems we have in the world and knuckleheads are worried about gay folk getting married.
About as stupid as it ever gets.
"Because they are redefining marriage"
HAHAHAHA, panties in a wad over that and lobby for Constitutional Amendments to ban it.
We are a nation of village idiots.
No one with any sense gives a shit about gay marriage. "God told me not to accept it" does not work anymore sports fans.
Get over it. Gay folk are different than us and they happen to fall in love with folk of the same sex.
If you do not like it then stay the hell out of their business.
HELLO, THERE ARE GAY FOLK IN YOUR FAMILY TOO.

The gays certainly seem to give a shit about it. They're protestig all over the place and spending boocoo cash to get their views on ballots and heard in court.
I personally have no issue if two gay people want to shack up and call it whatever they want. But dont expect me to pay for it.

 

[Seawytch]

The state discriminates every day in that business. That's what laws are all about, discriminating between the rightful and lawful and the unlawful and illicit.

Discriminating in the sense that the state decides who is entitled to a given right and who is not, based solely upon who they are. Certainly the state has done that in the past, but it should not being doing that.

We discriminate against felons and illegal aliens in voting rights. We discriminate against children in voting. We discriminate against traitors in the first amendment. There's a whole list.

Some states discriminate against felons voting rights, some do not. Have some of these laws, like those that permanently take away a Felon's right to vote been challenged all the way to the SCOTUS yet?

A convicted felon's right to marry was affirmed by the SCOTUS. (Turner v Safley)

You have to have a reason to take away or deny a right from a group of people. A reason that will stand up in a court of law. "It's icky" or "then we (heterosexuals) won't be special" will not.

 

[Gadawg73]

There is nothing in law that tells a person, RIGHT NOW and before, that they can not marry.

How many states have Constitutional Amendments BANNING SAME SEX MARRIAGE?
That is "nothing in law"?

No state bans gay marriage. My state, TN, defines marriage as between one man and one woman. That doesnt mean two faygolas can't go get hitched and live together. No state police officer is going to haul people off to jail because they put a piece of paper on the wall.

Your state did not define a damn thing. They passed A LAW that banned same sex marriage in your state.
The Act specifically states that gay marriages will not be recognized there and ANY AND ALL states that recognize it and marry same sex couples, that contract will not be honored there.
I have no problem with ignorance by popular vote. That is a states' right.
So you good folks hate gay folks so much you spent millions for a referendum to make a statement that affects no one.
Got it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Discriminating in the sense that the state decides who is entitled to a given right and who is not, based solely upon who they are. Certainly the state has done that in the past, but it should not being doing that.

We discriminate against felons and illegal aliens in voting rights. We discriminate against children in voting. We discriminate against traitors in the first amendment. There's a whole list.

Some states discriminate against felons voting rights, some do not. Have some of these laws, like those that permanently take away a Felon's right to vote been challenged all the way to the SCOTUS yet?

A convicted felon's right to marry was affirmed by the SCOTUS. (Turner v Safley)

You have to have a reason to take away or deny a right from a group of people. A reason that will stand up in a court of law. "It's icky" or "then we (heterosexuals) won't be special" will not.

Because a stable nuclear family is the foundation of society and therefore in the state's interest to promote.
That pretty well covers it. You can carp and dither all you want about childless couples and older couples but it is irrelevant.

 

[JakeStarkey]

RKMBrown simply does not comprehend the issue.