Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[Seawytch]

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?

Someone did. Polygamy made it to court I'm pretty sure.

No matter what, you can't blame the gays or the blacks that wanted to marry whites. It's all the 14th's fault.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

That is not irony, even if it were true.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

You realize you are taking to zero tolerance people, right? To an authoritarian consentual sodomy is no different than rape.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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".

You should do it yourself. The tribes actually gave the same status to people that walked backwards, or that saw people that weren't there. In other words, they thought crazy people were touched by the gods, and avoided offending said crazy people to avoid offending the gods.

 

[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.

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.

Not on all matters. For example, IMO marriage is a part of life and liberty and as such should be protected federally. I'm not a fan of the due process clause in the 14th amendment.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Someone did. Polygamy made it to court I'm pretty sure.

No matter what, you can't blame the gays or the blacks that wanted to marry whites. It's all the 14th's fault.

Believe it or not, so did same sex marraige, at about the same time. Since one of the precedents was just overturned based on modern jurisprudence, why shouldn't the other?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Not on all matters. For example, IMO marriage is a part of life and liberty and as such should be protected federally. I'm not a fan of the due process clause in the 14th amendment.

Protected from what?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

The extent to which you just don’t get it is remarkable.

Disallowing siblings to marry is applied to everyone equally: all races, creeds, colors, and sexual orientations; no suspect or particular class of persons is singled out to be disadvantaged. Consequently the burden on the state to defend such a prohibition is very slight, where such a measure would withstand rational basis judicial review.

There is documented evidence of birth defects and other serious conditions resulting from a brother and sister procreating, however ‘extremely unlikely.’ Under rational basis judicial review that evidence is sufficient to justify such a prohibition, where the restriction seeks a legitimate legislative end.

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

Someone did. Polygamy made it to court I'm pretty sure.

No matter what, you can't blame the gays or the blacks that wanted to marry whites. It's all the 14th's fault.

Believe it or not, so did same sex marraige, at about the same time. Since one of the precedents was just overturned based on modern jurisprudence, why shouldn't the other?

Agreed. Polygamy should be legalized. I can't fathom the societal argument against it. The law seems to me to be an establishment of Catholics' religion as a state law.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Not on all matters. For example, IMO marriage is a part of life and liberty and as such should be protected federally. I'm not a fan of the due process clause in the 14th amendment.

Protected from what?

From laws violating said rights. Said another way, protected from a tyrannical majority.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The extent to which you just don’t get it is remarkable.

Please, educate me.

If you can.

Disallowing siblings to marry is applied to everyone equally: all races, creeds, colors, and sexual orientations; no suspect or particular class of persons is singled out to be disadvantaged. Consequently the burden on the state to defend such a prohibition is very slight, where such a measure would withstand rational basis judicial review.

That sounds just like the argument the state used in Bowers v Hardwick, and all the other cases that the court has ruled on in the past, that held that homosexuality and gay marraige were legitimate state interests and could be banned. Strangely enough, they have all been overturned, yet you think they still apply to things you don't like.

There is documented evidence of birth defects and other serious conditions resulting from a brother and sister procreating, however ‘extremely unlikely.’ Under rational basis judicial review that evidence is sufficient to justify such a prohibition, where the restriction seeks a legitimate legislative end.

There is also documented evidence that birth defects result when a parent smokes, or when the mother is over 40, should we make it illegal to get married if you smoke or are too old?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Not on all matters. For example, IMO marriage is a part of life and liberty and as such should be protected federally. I'm not a fan of the due process clause in the 14th amendment.

Due process is of course both procedural and substantive, the latter of which protects our individual liberty, and places necessary restrictions on the state, where government may not violate one’s sphere of privacy:

The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons.

[Homosexuals’] right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention. Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the individual’s personal and private life. Pp. 17—18.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Again, conservatives are inconsistent with regard to their perception of ‘liberty,’ where they applaud restrictions on the Federal government yet denounce restrictions on state governments predicated on the fallacy of ‘states’ rights.’

The states do not have the right to violate the civil liberties of their residents, as clearly demonstrated in both Romer and Lawrence. The 14th Amendment guarantees every American the right to due process, regardless his state of residence, and equal protection of (equal access to) the laws of his state, including marriage law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

They are both uses of the word kill.

What crackpot point are you trying to make btw?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

There was a reason I used the term 'so-called'.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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".

You should do it yourself. The tribes actually gave the same status to people that walked backwards, or that saw people that weren't there. In other words, they thought crazy people were touched by the gods, and avoided offending said crazy people to avoid offending the gods.

That is not relevant. The fact is that Circe out of ignorance claimed there was never ever such a thing as same sex marriage in all the history of the human race, until just lately,

and I corrected her. Let it go.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

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

Consent

Wrong answer.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

You're just butt hurt that you've been taken to the cleaners here and revealed as an ignoramus of world class proportions.

 

[The Rabbi]

Someone did. Polygamy made it to court I'm pretty sure.

No matter what, you can't blame the gays or the blacks that wanted to marry whites. It's all the 14th's fault.

Believe it or not, so did same sex marraige, at about the same time. Since one of the precedents was just overturned based on modern jurisprudence, why shouldn't the other?

Agreed. Polygamy should be legalized. I can't fathom the societal argument against it. The law seems to me to be an establishment of Catholics' religion as a state law.

OK. Here's an easy one for you.
Are there are any relationships that should not be called marriage if the parties want to call it that?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

They are both uses of the word kill.

What crackpot point are you trying to make btw?

One that is obviously beyond your comprehension.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Definition of SO-CALLED
1: commonly named : popularly so termed <the so–called pocket veto>
2: falsely or improperly so named <deceived by a so–called friend>

Since 'berdache' is both the common, popular term used, and since 'berdache' is also considered by some to be inappropriate or improper,

by describing the term as 'so-called' I modified it precisely.

Don't disrespect my efforts to properly use the language.