Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[Gadawg73]

Unbelievable the lame excuses here.
Let them marry. No big deal.
Affects no one.

 

[idb]

Why do we want to be such a denerate people?

The "we" you refer to are all the leftists/libtards/progressives/democraps that just love anything perverted and/or sexually deviant/sick. They have no morals and completely disregard the laws of nature. They are as disgusting a bunch of people as the disgusting and perverted shit they love so much.

Crikey...I've got an erection now!

 

[Seawytch]

A mass murderer can marry in Tennessee but not gay folk.
Makes perfect sense.

Not just a mass murderer, but a convicted murderer on death row with no chance of having conjugal visits (hence no chance at procreating).

Governors pardon people at the last minute.
Fail.

Oh? How many a year? How many convicted murderers on death row are pardoned compared to those that aren't? Even if someone is not executed, they still spend their lives in jail, without conjugal visits. How does that work in your "nuclear family"? They can marry, pardoned or not. That's a preferred family structure to two loving, consenting adults who just happen to be of the same sex?

 

[Seawytch]

No appropriation necessary. Each civil rights struggle is its own...but the discrimination is often the same.

Argument Then: "there is no discrimination because you can marry your own race" (even though that isn't who you fell in love with)

Argument Now: "there is no discrimination because you can marry someone of the opposite sex" (even though that isn't who you fell in love with)

Same same

Not at all. Not even remotely close. But you parrot the party line pretty well.

How is the discrimination different? I'm not asking how race and orientation are different, I'm asking how the discrimination is different.

The silence is deafening...

 

[Seawytch]

Why do we want to be such a denerate people?

The "we" you refer to are all the leftists/libtards/progressives/democraps that just love anything perverted and/or sexually deviant/sick. They have no morals and completely disregard the laws of nature. They are as disgusting a bunch of people as the disgusting and perverted shit they love so much.

Connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them should be prohibited by positive law and be subject to no evasion.

Virginia Hasn't Always Been for Lovers

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Nonsense.

This ‘argument’ was used and failed in Perry.

Advocates of Proposition 8 failed to provide any objective, documented evidence in support of this canard.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Yes, they have.

 

[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

You know what is particularly funny about this topic?

Kent Greenfield is a liberal teacher. And we all know what complete idiots liberal teachers are...

You want to know what is really funny about it?

I predicted you would pop in and make comments without doing any research, like reading to the end of the post you have quoted twice.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Yes, they have.

They who have what?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Yes, they have.

They who have what?

You only asked one question.

 

[Seawytch]

Yes, they have.

They who have what?

You only asked one question.

By all means, provide it.

 

[francoHFW]

OP= Where do they find these people, even being paid off...

 

[Rct_Tsoul]

and practice legal pedophilia

[ame=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9muj_Aey7c&feature=youtube_gdata_player]pedophilia[/ame]

 

[The Rabbi]

So you admit that gay marriage is against the law "legalize" in some states.
Took a while to get you there with your dodges but the truth always comes out.
You support efforts not to legalize gay marriage because you believe it should be a crime similar to pederasty.
Your example, not mine.

You're becoming especially incoherent now that i've taken you to cleaners on this issue.
There is no ban. There are no gay police out there hauling off couples to jail because they posted a piece of paper on a wall.
Go have another scotch and maybe things will be clearer.

So you spent millions on a referendum to ban same sex marriage and it passes and you allow marriage licenses for same sex couples as a result of that.
Back in my playing days I always knew when I had that big, overgrown man mountain of an offensive tackle beat when he started calling me names, crying to the line ref and making excuses.
You have been caught and filleted. You claim that your state passed a Constitutional Amendment banning same sex marriages yet do not enforce it.
Enforcement IS NOT PRISON, it is NOT issuing them a license.
B

You keep on with the fallacy that the state banned same sex marriage. I've already pointed out that is wrong. I quoted the text of the TN Constitution that establishes the rule. And yet you continue to spew misinformation and claim you somehow "won" because you've disproven what I never wrote.
Are you feeling quite all right?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Nonsense.

This ‘argument’ was used and failed in Perry.

Advocates of Proposition 8 failed to provide any objective, documented evidence in support of this canard.

It is hardly a canard. It is the truth. People are so screwed up they cannot see it.
It is a fact that children coming out of a stable home with 2 parents tend to have fewer problems than otherwise. We are already seeing children raised in deviant homes being subjected to essentially child abuse by politically hyperactive "parents".

 

[idb]

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.

Nonsense.

This ‘argument’ was used and failed in Perry.

Advocates of Proposition 8 failed to provide any objective, documented evidence in support of this canard.

It is hardly a canard. It is the truth. People are so screwed up they cannot see it.
It is a fact that children coming out of a stable home with 2 parents tend to have fewer problems than otherwise. We are already seeing children raised in deviant homes being subjected to essentially child abuse by politically hyperactive "parents".

Yes, you're right komrad.
Families must be regulated for the good of the state.

 

[The Rabbi]

Nonsense.

This ‘argument’ was used and failed in Perry.

Advocates of Proposition 8 failed to provide any objective, documented evidence in support of this canard.

It is hardly a canard. It is the truth. People are so screwed up they cannot see it.
It is a fact that children coming out of a stable home with 2 parents tend to have fewer problems than otherwise. We are already seeing children raised in deviant homes being subjected to essentially child abuse by politically hyperactive "parents".

Yes, you're right komrad.
Families must be regulated for the good of the state.

You're kinda stupid, aren't you?

 

[idb]

It is hardly a canard. It is the truth. People are so screwed up they cannot see it.
It is a fact that children coming out of a stable home with 2 parents tend to have fewer problems than otherwise. We are already seeing children raised in deviant homes being subjected to essentially child abuse by politically hyperactive "parents".

Yes, you're right komrad.
Families must be regulated for the good of the state.

You're kinda stupid, aren't you?

I'm agreeing with you...wait...does that make you stupid as well?

Come on, come out of the closet komrad...you're a Liberal.
The family's rights are secondary to the good of society...you said it yourself more than once in this very thread.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, you're right komrad.
Families must be regulated for the good of the state.

You're kinda stupid, aren't you?

I'm agreeing with you...wait...does that make you stupid as well?

Come on, come out of the closet komrad...you're a Liberal.
The family's rights are secondary to the good of society...you said it yourself more than once in this very thread.

Please post where I wrote that.
I wont wait. You're an idiot. That much is clear.

 

[idb]

Do you honestly believe that there are not people out there who want incestuous marriages? Polygamous marriages? And so forth? Why will their claims be inferior to those demanding same sex marriages? Once the precedent is established that marriage can mean whatever anyone wants, then that has to go for everyone. There is no limiting principle.

Why are their claims inferior to different sex marriages?

Because traditional marriage serves a useful function to society as a whole. Gay marriage serves no such function.

This one maybe, komrade?