Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[Seawytch]

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.

So it sounds like you just identified a "societal harm" in allowing polygamist marriages. Will it hold up in court?

 

[Publius1787]

Nobody - not same-sex marriage proponents, not the SCOTUS - is trying to redefine marriage as anything that anybody wants. What an utterly ridiculous claim. What supporters of same-sex marriage want is to have gay marriages, unions, recognized and respected like those of opposite-sex marriages. To go from that to, "Now people will legalize bestiality, marry their siblings and practice legal pedophilia", is just fucking stupid.

The legal justification for polygamy is the exact same as that of same sex marriage. You disagree? What are you a polygaphobe? Bigot!

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Then share with us how the discrimination is different.

 

[Redfish]

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.

So it sounds like you just identified a "societal harm" in allowing polygamist marriages. Will it hold up in court?

probably not, meet your new neighbors: Abdul, Sabha, Maria, Donya, Tabitha, Louise and their 23 children. You must send your teenage daughters over to meet Abdul.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

If you believe that then you have more problems than homophobia.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Bull carp. Discrimination between car colors is not the same as racism. Your argument is ludicrous.

 

[Circe]

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.

This is such nonsense.

You know, if everyone knew about this, everyone would know about this. This is absurd. We'd have heard.

 

[Redfish]

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.

This is such nonsense.

You know, if everyone knew about this, everyone would know about this. This is absurd. We'd have heard.

damn, I guess we both missed all the queer indian stories.

 

[Circe]

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

No, slippery slopes are a major change agent in human affairs. Look at quickie divorces: Reno started all that back in the 1940s, and pretty soon, we had quickie divorces and no-fault divorces all over America.

This is exactly WHY the homosexuals push and push and push everyone's face into their perversions: because the more we get used to it, the faster we slide down their slope. They'll have men "marrying" young children legally soon. Or just openly sexing them up, and no one can stop them. That's the whole reason they are destroying the Boy Scouts now: the Scouts had tried to stop this slide down the slope.

Slippery slopes are how things change; usually for the worse.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

This is such nonsense.

You know, if everyone knew about this, everyone would know about this. This is absurd. We'd have heard.

The fact that your understanding of history doesn't go much past your failed attempt to memorize the Gettysburg address is not my problem.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nobody - not same-sex marriage proponents, not the SCOTUS - is trying to redefine marriage as anything that anybody wants. What an utterly ridiculous claim. What supporters of same-sex marriage want is to have gay marriages, unions, recognized and respected like those of opposite-sex marriages. To go from that to, "Now people will legalize bestiality, marry their siblings and practice legal pedophilia", is just fucking stupid.

The legal justification for polygamy is the exact same as that of same sex marriage. You disagree? What are you a polygaphobe? Bigot!

Then the legal justification for polygamy is the exact same as that of opposite sex monogamous marriage.

 

[Circe]

The fact that your understanding of history doesn't go much past your failed attempt to memorize the Gettysburg address is not my problem.

I can still say most of it off by memory...... [

Your example of homosexual marriages among Indians is such nonsense! Have a whole lot of you heard of this?

I think you are making it up out of whole cloth.

Anyway, I think it's obvious to everyone but you with your tall tales that homosexual "marriages" is a new thing in human experience, like abortion, like birth control, like interracial marriage on the sort of scale we see today.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

If you believe that then you have more problems than homophobia.

Then please explain how the discrimination is different. I'll wait.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Bull carp. Discrimination between car colors is not the same as racism. Your argument is ludicrous.

They are both discrimination.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

No, slippery slopes are a major change agent in human affairs. Look at quickie divorces: Reno started all that back in the 1940s, and pretty soon, we had quickie divorces and no-fault divorces all over America.

This is exactly WHY the homosexuals push and push and push everyone's face into their perversions: because the more we get used to it, the faster we slide down their slope. They'll have men "marrying" young children legally soon. Or just openly sexing them up, and no one can stop them. That's the whole reason they are destroying the Boy Scouts now: the Scouts had tried to stop this slide down the slope.

Slippery slopes are how things change; usually for the worse.

lol, see what I mean.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Bull carp. Discrimination between car colors is not the same as racism. Your argument is ludicrous.

They are both discrimination.

lol, they are both discrimination because the word discrimination has various meanings.

Another example, I could kill you in debate on this forum, or kill you by beating your head with a hammer.

They are both killings.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The fact that your understanding of history doesn't go much past your failed attempt to memorize the Gettysburg address is not my problem.

I can still say most of it off by memory...... [

Your example of homosexual marriages among Indians is such nonsense! Have a whole lot of you heard of this?

I think you are making it up out of whole cloth.

Anyway, I think it's obvious to everyone but you with your tall tales that homosexual "marriages" is a new thing in human experience, like abortion, like birth control, like interracial marriage on the sort of scale we see today.

Google 'berdache' and invest a half hour in the subject.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gore Vidal lived with his partner Howard Austen for over 50 years.

Maurice Sendak was with his partner Dr. Eugene Glyn for over 50 years.

Those are gay marriages, in spirit if not in law. Such marriages have occurred throughout history.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You asked where the harm is in polygamy and I explained where it is. If you can think of a modern example that proves that the anthropological studies are missing something feel free to trot it out. If all you have is your belief that it will work better now because you say so that is fine too, just don't pretend there is no harm in polygamy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You don't recall arguing against incest?