Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and 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? Did I confuse you with someone else?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nah, just the children they produce.

You don't like children?

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

What, exactly, is your problem then? The extremely unlikely chance that siblings could have reinforced recessive with a detrimental effect? Do you also oppose allowing women who are over 40 to have children? The latter is, statistically, the more dangerous of the two situations.

 

[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.

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

Why should it?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

No. One is metaphorical in your example and one is actual.
In my example they are both discrimination.

fail.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

The same way it is different for me to go out of my way to avoid blooming corpse flowers and for me to react the same way to gays.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Gee, some of us here have been saying exactly that only to be derided.

When "marriage" means whatever anyone wants it to mean then it has no meaning at all.

Indeed. We have reached the precipice of the "slippery slope" and will now begin our desent down the mountain directly into Sodom and Gamorrah.

 

[G.T.]

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?

No sir, that was someone else.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[
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.

Why would American societies use a French word? Is it possible you are being stupid again?

 

[kaz]

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 irony of your argument is you don't grasp that it supports that proponents of man/woman marriage view is as logically valid as yours. Their standard is their standard, yours is yours.

The best answer is to get government out of the marriage business entirely. The next best is to let the participants define it. Third is a tie between you and the socons, a rigid, arbitrary standard determined by politicians.

 

[kaz]

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.

Why would American societies use a French word? Is it possible you are being stupid again?

so they are candide?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

You don't recall arguing against incest?

No sir, that was someone else.

Yet you insist on arguing with me that there is no legal difference between discriminating against same sex marriage and incest or polygamy, why is that?

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

It's a sticky situation. Most folks are taught as kids to be racist homophobes by their friends and relatives. Some folks are incapable of reason based on independent thought, instead they get in a rut of echoing what their influencers have told them is the truth. Many gays and blacks react to this in militant attacks on anyone who isn't of their group. This gives credence and continues the cycle.

Sigh. Being a white male hetero constitutional conservative who is decidedly in favor of civil rights for all, I get to be hated by everyone. Well everyone except my friends, wife, and kids.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Gee, some of us here have been saying exactly that only to be derided.

When "marriage" means whatever anyone wants it to mean then it has no meaning at all.

Indeed. We have reached the precipice of the "slippery slope" and will now begin our desent down the mountain directly into Sodom and Gamorrah.

Oh, brother.

There is no ‘slope,’ slippery or otherwise.

Same-sex couples have always had the right to access marriage law, the only issue is states refusing to acknowledge that right.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Consent

 

[RKMBrown]

Speaking of homos little prick in the mouth rabbi lost his argument so bad that he felt the need to negg. Must be hard to go through life with the IQ of a slug.

 

[Seawytch]

You don't like children?

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

What, exactly, is your problem then? The extremely unlikely chance that siblings could have reinforced recessive with a detrimental effect? Do you also oppose allowing women who are over 40 to have children? The latter is, statistically, the more dangerous of the two situations.

Look, if you successfully sue to have your relationship recognized and the state cannot ascribe a societal harm in allowing it, more power to you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

It's a sticky situation. Most folks are taught as kids to be racist homophobes by their friends and relatives. Some folks are incapable of reason based on independent thought, instead they get in a rut of echoing what their influencers have told them is the truth. Many gays and blacks react to this in militant attacks on anyone who isn't of their group. This gives credence and continues the cycle.

Sigh. Being a white male hetero constitutional conservative who is decidedly in favor of civil rights for all, I get to be hated by everyone. Well everyone except my friends, wife, and kids.

The sad irony of this, of course, is that equal protection jurisprudence is predicated on a fundamental conservative principle: individual liberty and government restriction. Libertarians and conservatives decry the ‘tyranny’ of the Federal government yet endorse the tyranny of state and local governments.

 

[Seawytch]

Gee, some of us here have been saying exactly that only to be derided.

When "marriage" means whatever anyone wants it to mean then it has no meaning at all.

Indeed. We have reached the precipice of the "slippery slope" and will now begin our desent down the mountain directly into Sodom and Gamorrah.

We are going to become inhospitable? When angels are going to be raped (which is an act of power, not sex) by a riotous mob and some guy sends his daughters out to be raped instead then that same guy has sex with his daughters, then we'll be like S&G.

Had nothing to do with two consenting adults wanting a legal marriage.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

What, exactly, is your problem then? The extremely unlikely chance that siblings could have reinforced recessive with a detrimental effect? Do you also oppose allowing women who are over 40 to have children? The latter is, statistically, the more dangerous of the two situations.

Look, if you successfully sue to have your relationship recognized and the state cannot ascribe a societal harm in allowing it, more power to you.

The best you can do is an ad hominen attack accusing me of what you see as perversion and you wonder why I started this thread about how no one has yet effectively articulated an argument against either incest or polygamy to differentiate them from same sex relationships?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

I gave you a link already. Google "two spirits".