Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

Of course you red versus blue dopes think that Rome fell because of liberalism. and, of course, anyone who doesn't think that is ignorant of history. It has nothing to do with its expansions - causing its Government to adapt to the newly conquered people - nothing to do with infiltrators (Barbarians), nothing to do with the two capitals (one still standing, mind you).....and don't even DARE mention that Christianity being adopted as the state religion is cited by the leading historians on ancient rome as being one of the underlying issues.

Naw, it was simply the icky gays and liberalism.

Warped fucking minds you bickering, spiteful old fucks have.

You don't think the Roman Empire going out of its way to impose its form of government on others was the problem, yet you just argued that it imposing its form of government on others was the problem.

As for inbreeding, I suggest you look up the fundamental precept of evolution, which is based on genetic drift.

Inbreeding existing as a common practice in early humans is not really a disputed fact, bro. There are skulls and other evidence that confirm the theory.

The Roman "Empire" was ONLY AN EMPIRE because of imposing. Derp. Obviously as they conquered territories and their empire grew, they were "imposing."

That was not what I was saying. The point was that the Government HAD TO CHANGE too much.
 
But by all means, if anyone wants to believe that Gays and amoral misbehaving caused the downfall of Rome, go for it. Nevermind the Barbarians, the wars, etc.

Naw, it was gays.
 
[
Same sex marriage is and always has been part of the definition of marriage,

No, it never has in the entire known history of the world until the last couple years in a few places. There have been homosexuals living together before, but no one has ever called it marriage before, anywhere. You probably need to study history instead of just assuming that how things are in your county this five minutes is how things have been forever everywhere.

Men marrying men has never, never, never been part of officially sanctioned marriage or probably any other kind of marriage.


It's a brand-new perversion, that's all. We have lots of them. Brave New World.
 
I've studied history. However, I missed the part where we supposedly learned that ancient liberals destroyed those civilizations by enacting the liberal edicts of corruption, aversion to work, and the amoral code.

Lol.

I suggest you read Edward Gibbons.

Those liberal Christians, eh? "Turn the other cheek" and all that, led to the decline. It's time to revive the true meaning of the Saturnalia. :eusa_pray:

I said read him, not pick the parts you want and jump to conclusions.
 
Of course you red versus blue dopes think that Rome fell because of liberalism. and, of course, anyone who doesn't think that is ignorant of history. It has nothing to do with its expansions - causing its Government to adapt to the newly conquered people - nothing to do with infiltrators (Barbarians), nothing to do with the two capitals (one still standing, mind you).....and don't even DARE mention that Christianity being adopted as the state religion is cited by the leading historians on ancient rome as being one of the underlying issues.

Naw, it was simply the icky gays and liberalism.

Warped fucking minds you bickering, spiteful old fucks have.

You don't think the Roman Empire going out of its way to impose its form of government on others was the problem, yet you just argued that it imposing its form of government on others was the problem.

As for inbreeding, I suggest you look up the fundamental precept of evolution, which is based on genetic drift.

Inbreeding existing as a common practice in early humans is not really a disputed fact, bro. There are skulls and other evidence that confirm the theory.

The Roman "Empire" was ONLY AN EMPIRE because of imposing. Derp. Obviously as they conquered territories and their empire grew, they were "imposing."

That was not what I was saying. The point was that the Government HAD TO CHANGE too much.

You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
 
i'd care but i don't. freedom of choice is a wonderful thing

And, isn't it nice that its guaranteed by our constitution.

Those who want the government to control their private lives should move to any of the gazillion backward countries that don't have our constitution. And, they should quit bitching about Islam/ sharia law because that is exactly what they want here.
 
I think profiling is needed to identify the perp.

I mean, if we all looked alike, how would you find who you are looking for?
 
But by all means, if anyone wants to believe that Gays and amoral misbehaving caused the downfall of Rome, go for it. Nevermind the Barbarians, the wars, etc.

Naw, it was gays.

Why were there barbarians in Rome? Specifically, why were barbarians the bulk of the Roman army?

The general claim from people who are arguing that a lack of morality resulted in the collapse of the Roman Empire is that Roman citizens stopped doing their own work. They thought the state existed to provide their comfort, which is the same argument people are making today, you just call it a social safety net. You argue that people have a right to health care, shelter, food, and even internet access.

Gibbon considered hedonism to be a moral problem, and argued that the lack of a work ethic resulted in the collapse of Rome. You would know that if you had actually read him, but reading more than 140 characters at once gives most people a headache.
 
But by all means, if anyone wants to believe that Gays and amoral misbehaving caused the downfall of Rome, go for it. Nevermind the Barbarians, the wars, etc.

Naw, it was gays.

Why were there barbarians in Rome? Specifically, why were barbarians the bulk of the Roman army?

The general claim from people who are arguing that a lack of morality resulted in the collapse of the Roman Empire is that Roman citizens stopped doing their own work. They thought the state existed to provide their comfort, which is the same argument people are making today, you just call it a social safety net. You argue that people have a right to health care, shelter, food, and even internet access.

Gibbon considered hedonism to be a moral problem, and argued that the lack of a work ethic resulted in the collapse of Rome. You would know that if you had actually read him, but reading more than 140 characters at once gives most people a headache.

Thanks for the insult.

But no, it wasn't that people got lazy. It's that they got overtaken, by force. This was still back in the days of conquering territory, it's not comparable to the USA today and to suggest that it is, is absurd.
 
Because interracial marriage is not gay marriage. Therefore they are different. The state had no legitimate interest in promoting same race marriage over interracial marriage. That is not the case with gay marriage where the state has a compelling interest.
But you keep banging that drum and maybe someone will buy the bullshit.

Brilliant! "How is the discrimination different", I ask...

Rabbi's response? "It just is".

Truly brilliant!

You say the state has a compelling interest to "promote marriage" and yet you didn't say how letting me legally marry and protect my partner and family "un-promotes" marriage.

:lol: seems to me it boils down to you not being "special" anymore. :lol:

We don't have to have a "compelling state reason" to get married, but you do have to provide an overriding harm in allowing it. You can't.
Why are you asking him to explain the fifference between homosexual behavior and race mixing? They are different, duh.

I'm not asking him to explain the difference between innate traits, I'm asking him to explain the difference in the discrimination.

So far his answer has been "'cause it is".
 
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".


How is the discrimination different?

People who engage in the sin of interracial marriage need to reflect upon the offspring they will parent. What race will these children identify with? We know of a child who asked her maternal grandmother when she would turn white like her. ... The above-mentioned child put powder all over herself one day, in an attempt to look like her mother. This, of course, did not work. It will never work, and this child will suffer for her mother's sin forever.

What God Says About Interracial Marriage

What is the difference between interracial marriage and sibling marriage? Is it that you think one is a sin and the other isn't? What about a mother marrying her daughter?

I don't believe in the concept of "sin".
 
But by all means, if anyone wants to believe that Gays and amoral misbehaving caused the downfall of Rome, go for it. Nevermind the Barbarians, the wars, etc.

Naw, it was gays.

Why were there barbarians in Rome? Specifically, why were barbarians the bulk of the Roman army?

The general claim from people who are arguing that a lack of morality resulted in the collapse of the Roman Empire is that Roman citizens stopped doing their own work. They thought the state existed to provide their comfort, which is the same argument people are making today, you just call it a social safety net. You argue that people have a right to health care, shelter, food, and even internet access.

Gibbon considered hedonism to be a moral problem, and argued that the lack of a work ethic resulted in the collapse of Rome. You would know that if you had actually read him, but reading more than 140 characters at once gives most people a headache.

Thanks for the insult.

But no, it wasn't that people got lazy. It's that they got overtaken, by force. This was still back in the days of conquering territory, it's not comparable to the USA today and to suggest that it is, is absurd.

they got overtaken by force when the barbarians that were supposed to defend them didn't get paid.
 
How is the discrimination different?

People who engage in the sin of interracial marriage need to reflect upon the offspring they will parent. What race will these children identify with? We know of a child who asked her maternal grandmother when she would turn white like her. ... The above-mentioned child put powder all over herself one day, in an attempt to look like her mother. This, of course, did not work. It will never work, and this child will suffer for her mother's sin forever.

What God Says About Interracial Marriage

What is the difference between interracial marriage and sibling marriage? Is it that you think one is a sin and the other isn't? What about a mother marrying her daughter?

I don't believe in the concept of "sin".

Yet you object to incestuous relationships.
 
[
Same sex marriage is and always has been part of the definition of marriage,

No, it never has in the entire known history of the world until the last couple years in a few places. There have been homosexuals living together before, but no one has ever called it marriage before, anywhere. You probably need to study history instead of just assuming that how things are in your county this five minutes is how things have been forever everywhere.

Men marrying men has never, never, never been part of officially sanctioned marriage or probably any other kind of marriage.


It's a brand-new perversion, that's all. We have lots of them. Brave New World.

Not true. From Wiki:

While it is relatively new to modern history that same-sex couples are widely being granted the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly used by mixed-sexed couples, there is a long history of recorded same-sex unions and marriages around the world.[2] Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.
 
How is the discrimination different?

People who engage in the sin of interracial marriage need to reflect upon the offspring they will parent. What race will these children identify with? We know of a child who asked her maternal grandmother when she would turn white like her. ... The above-mentioned child put powder all over herself one day, in an attempt to look like her mother. This, of course, did not work. It will never work, and this child will suffer for her mother's sin forever.

What God Says About Interracial Marriage

What is the difference between interracial marriage and sibling marriage? Is it that you think one is a sin and the other isn't? What about a mother marrying her daughter?

I don't believe in the concept of "sin".

do you believe in right and wrong? or is it "anything goes that feels good"
 
The adherents of social Christian nationalism here need to understand that no longer can they enforce right wing statist progressive government edicts on the American people in accordance with the socons' ideas of cultural conformity.

Kiddos, those days are over.

then you better get ready for abdul and his four wives, and radical mormons with multiple wives. then get ready for gays in group marriages, mother/daughter, father/son, brother/sister. because once two men or two women are married legally, then the courts will have no choice but to sanction all forms of marriage. The lawyers will be lining up to handle these cases, and they will win.
 
What is the difference between interracial marriage and sibling marriage? Is it that you think one is a sin and the other isn't? What about a mother marrying her daughter?

I don't believe in the concept of "sin".

do you believe in right and wrong? or is it "anything goes that feels good"

Right and wrong has very little to do with which sexual partners you choose.

When something is considered wrong, it's usually got an actual functional reasoning behind it.

That is what traditionalism doesn't get, versus (many, and growing) persons of the modern era.

Not wearing a hat at the dinner table is a frivolous rule. It is only rude because it was "declared" as such with no reasoning that has an actual working function. For starters, you can still see the eyes of the majority of hat wearers, and to follow, dinner is not the only time we engage in discussion. And to follow, it is not pertinent to a polite conversation to see each others eyes at maximum efficiency.....see: phones.

It is just one of the stupid and baseless rules of traditionalism.

If it was considered "proper" to wear a cod fish on your head, would you?
 
The adherents of social Christian nationalism here need to understand that no longer can they enforce right wing statist progressive government edicts on the American people in accordance with the socons' ideas of cultural conformity.

Kiddos, those days are over.

then you better get ready for abdul and his four wives, and radical mormons with multiple wives. then get ready for gays in group marriages, mother/daughter, father/son, brother/sister. because once two men or two women are married legally, then the courts will have no choice but to sanction all forms of marriage. The lawyers will be lining up to handle these cases, and they will win.

Are they lining up now in the states where gay marriage is legal aready?

Further, I don't see any actualized harm in polygamy.
 

Forum List

Back
Top