Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[Seawytch]

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.

Check MA...they've had it the longest.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We have a social Christian nationalist fail here.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
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.

Wrong. You know nothing of history. In many native American cultures you had the so-called 'berdache' who were men who identified as women, and were allowed to live as women and were in many cases allowed to marry men.

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

who cares.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The slippery slope argument is generally used by people who can't make a good argument against the subject at hand.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Yet you object to incestuous relationships.

Nah, just the children they produce.

You don't like children?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

You really don't know a damn thing, do you?

 

[G.T.]

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?

You really don't know a damn thing, do you?

I'd ask the same of you, but I don't have to ask.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You don't see in harm in treating women like property?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The slippery slope argument is generally used by people who can't make a good argument against the subject at hand.

That doesn't make it wrong, does it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

You really don't know a damn thing, do you?

I'd ask the same of you, but I don't have to ask.

Simple truth, the fact that you do not like something is not enough for it to be declared wrong.

 

[G.T.]

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.

You don't see in harm in treating women like property?

Treating women poorly is treating women poorly. It's its own category.

Several women consenting to marry the same man, in and of itself, is not treating women poorly. Separating the two requires but honesty and a brain.

 

[G.T.]

You really don't know a damn thing, do you?

I'd ask the same of you, but I don't have to ask.

Simple truth, the fact that you do not like something is not enough for it to be declared wrong.

No shit, now apply that standard to the gay marriage debate for fuck's sakes and stop wasting bandwidth.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

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

You don't see in harm in treating women like property?

Treating women poorly is treating women poorly. It's its own category.

Several women consenting to marry the same man, in and of itself, is not treating women poorly. Separating the two requires but honesty and a brain.

Anthropology shows us that societies that promote polygamy end up treating young women as property, and use marriage as an indicator of wealth for men. This has nothing to do with how the women are treated within the society, which, as you point out, is a separate issue.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'd ask the same of you, but I don't have to ask.

Simple truth, the fact that you do not like something is not enough for it to be declared wrong.

No shit, now apply that standard to the gay marriage debate for fuck's sakes and stop wasting bandwidth.

May I point out the blindingly obvious truth that you are the one in this thread that is saying that certain people should not be allowed to marry because you think it is icky. You won't find a single post here where I did anything but poke wholes in the arguments of people, like you, that want to restrict marraige only to relationships that are approved by others.

 

[G.T.]

You don't see in harm in treating women like property?

Treating women poorly is treating women poorly. It's its own category.

Several women consenting to marry the same man, in and of itself, is not treating women poorly. Separating the two requires but honesty and a brain.

Anthropology shows us that societies that promote polygamy end up treating young women as property, and use marriage as an indicator of wealth for men. This has nothing to do with how the women are treated within the society, which, as you point out, is a separate issue.

This does not have to be true in this day and age, where women are treated more equally than ever thus Women may also have several Husbands, and not just the other way around.

Women are now people's bosses, cops, Senators, Congresswomen. I doubt we'll see some rising tide of mistreatment of women, but I appreciate that you're so supportive of them.

 

[G.T.]

Simple truth, the fact that you do not like something is not enough for it to be declared wrong.

No shit, now apply that standard to the gay marriage debate for fuck's sakes and stop wasting bandwidth.

May I point out the blindingly obvious truth that you are the one in this thread that is saying that certain people should not be allowed to marry because you think it is icky. You won't find a single post here where I did anything but poke wholes in the arguments of people, like you, that want to restrict marraige only to relationships that are approved by others.

Hmm, interesting I don't recall ever saying that.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

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

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".

Nah. For example running a printing press is not the same as running an ice cream truck. Both are running a thing, but they are not the same.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

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

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".

Discrimination is discrimination. There is no difference in discrimination between not recognizing gay marriage and not recognizing pederasty as a legitimate sport. Both are discrimination.

 

[Seawytch]

Yet you object to incestuous relationships.

Nah, just the children they produce.

You don't like children?

Right, that's what I meant, I don't like children.