Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[RKMBrown]

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?

There's evidence that stupidity is a genetic trait. Should we make it illegal for stupid people to have sex?

 

[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.

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.

>>> 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:

Bull shit. It means government can take what it wants when it wants for any damn reason. For example, so long as they call it a tax. See recent decision supporting Obama Care.

>>> 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.’

Bull shit. There are authoritarian conservatives and libertarian conservatives. And within those some believe in states rights and some don't. Your brush stroke is too broad.

By fallacy of "states" rights I assume you mean your opinion of the tenth amendment which states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Not sure how you read that as a fallacy. If so, then your state provided marriage license is now void.

 

[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.

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'.

You do know that, traditionally, Indians regarded schizophrenics and homosexuals as being touched by the gods, don't you? In other words, they just thought crazy people were special, which probably explains why you aren't smart enough to understand how you are insulting homosexuals with your arguments.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Umm, just because you call it marraige now does not mean that it was marriage.

 

[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.

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.

You used the wrong word even though you knew it was wrong? I guess that you are just stupid.

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

"called" marriage what the hell does that mean?

If by your odd question you mean is there any reason for the state(s) to restrict allowance of marriage licenses... then the answer is yes. For example, anyone under the age of consent for that state. Anyone under the influence of mind altering drugs. There's two. Marriage licenses are no different than any other contract in the eyes of the law. And as such they should be treated like any other contract. Governments should not be promoting religion or morality with their contracts management other than ensuring a crime is not being committed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Please, educate me.

If you can.



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?

There's evidence that stupidity is a genetic trait. Should we make it illegal for stupid people to have sex?

I am not the one arguing that we shouldn't let some people marry because of the children, you are.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

"called" marriage what the hell does that mean?

If by your odd question you mean is there any reason for the state(s) to restrict allowance of marriage licenses... then the answer is yes. For example, anyone under the age of consent for that state. Anyone under the influence of mind altering drugs. There's two. Marriage licenses are no different than any other contract in the eyes of the law. And as such they should be treated like any other contract. Governments should not be promoting religion or morality with their contracts management other than ensuring a crime is not being committed.

Thanks for proving my point.
You're dismissed.

 

[Seawytch]

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?

Name the same-sex marriage case ruled on by the SCOTUS. I can name the Polygamy case.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Umm, just because you call it marraige now does not mean that it was marriage.

Ah...the "no true Scotsman" argument. Always a fan fave!

If a same sex couple is joined by a religious leader in a marriage ceremony, no different than the ceremony performed for couples of the opposite sex, it's not a marriage if you say it isn't?

 

[Circe]

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.

"Umm, just because you call it marraige now does not mean that it was marriage."

Has anyone else ever in their lives heard of this Indian practice called by a French dirty word? I have to assume he's made it up, every word.

Presumably he is himself homosexual, because this is the usual pattern: to defend their perversion, homosexuals will claim that homosexuality is incredibly common ALL OVER THE WORLD and in the animal world, that male animals are just climbing on top of each other all the time mating. Of course all of this is total nonsense. They just make it up! To justify the deviant stuff they do.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Name the same-sex marriage case ruled on by the SCOTUS. I can name the Polygamy case.

You know about Pace v Alabama?

I have been trying to find the post where linked to the case where the court actually ruled against same sex marraige, I will have to get back to you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Umm, just because you call it marraige now does not mean that it was marriage.

Ah...the "no true Scotsman" argument. Always a fan fave!

If a same sex couple is joined by a religious leader in a marriage ceremony, no different than the ceremony performed for couples of the opposite sex, it's not a marriage if you say it isn't?

The point was that some Indian tribes allowed crazy people to do all sorts of things that, to a biased observer, might appear to be something else. That does not mean they actually treated it that way themselves.

 

[Circe]

Anyway, back to the slippery slope ---

If I am right that all the extremely antinatalist and unprecedented changes now occurring are a sort of inchoate effort of people moving as a social organism to try (unsuccessfully so far) to curb dangerous population growth before a crash --- then most of these measures would lessen births, not be pronatalist.

So birth control and abortion and homosexual marriages and seducing little boys and all that would of course tend to reduce population growth. So would incest that results in deformed births, as is common in incest. Coupling with animals, the same, if people start "marrying" their pets, which will surely be next in line.

But what about polygamy? Polygamy, at least Mormon polygamy, results in huge families of offspring. However, I think the general trend is antinatalist. They have to throw the boys away, for one thing: they can't have seven wives for one man if his sons are competing with him for the daughters of his brother. This does not matter demographically if all males who actually do polygamy are fertile because males can always be counted on, normally, to do what they do and beget children on the women. It doesn't matter if there are only 1/7th as many males if those males are fertile. But there is a problem getting enough females --- that's why all polygamy systems always use very young girls and lock them into marriages with relatives early. Polygamy is a bad situation for females and they quickly learn this and if old enough, they try to get out. It's crucial in both Muslim and fundamentalist and pioneer Mormons to lock them in between the ages of 12 and 14, or they lose too many. But that being the case, they HAVE to use incest: all polygamous systems are incestuous for a very obvious reason: not enough females! All nature provides is a one to one ratio, so unless they can kill out the adults of a wagon train and take all the girl children, as the Mormons did once, they have to use nieces, half-sisters, first cousins, etc., and the inbreeding results in a lot of genetic defects and some very strange looking families, very sad. Incest is antinatalist, because incest victims usually can't breed. The restriction in the gene pool by reducing so drastically the number of breeding males of course much increases the incest burden of genetic deformities.

If I'm right, I would expect to see a quick slide down this slippery slope, with all sorts of dire "marriages" starting to occur that are unproductive of normal children: incest, polygamy, animal, as well as homosexual "marriages." More divorces, abortions (especially of female fetuses in many areas of the world: this has a multiplier effect against future births), birth control. The one thing that won't happen is large, healthy families. That only happens when new areas open up, like the large families of colonial America, and there aren't any of those areas at this time.

 

[Seawytch]

Umm, just because you call it marraige now does not mean that it was marriage.

Ah...the "no true Scotsman" argument. Always a fan fave!

If a same sex couple is joined by a religious leader in a marriage ceremony, no different than the ceremony performed for couples of the opposite sex, it's not a marriage if you say it isn't?

The point was that some Indian tribes allowed crazy people to do all sorts of things that, to a biased observer, might appear to be something else. That does not mean they actually treated it that way themselves.

Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom. [...]

European conquest and colonization provides some of the best insight to marital and sexual practices of indigenous peoples across the globe. Examples of same-sex behavior, including transgenerational same-sex unions, have emerged everywhere from New Guinea to Polynesia (and were also prevalent in feudal Japan). The most numerous early accounts of same-sex, transgendered unions exist from European encounters with indigenous people in both North and South America.

The originally derogatory term berdache described transgendered “two-spirit” people prevalent in most of the tribes. Individuals, both male and female, assumed characteristics and roles of the opposite gender and lived out those roles within their tribes. These relationships are easily perceived as “homosexual” by outside observers, but it is clear that the Western delineations of heterosexuality and homosexuality would not have been understood within these societies. Nevertheless, these same-sex marriages had equal cultural and legal recognition within their communities and offered special advantages for the couples, particularly for women berdaches (Rupp, Eskridge).

A History of Gay Marriage

 

[Seawytch]

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?

Name the same-sex marriage case ruled on by the SCOTUS. I can name the Polygamy case.

You know about Pace v Alabama?

I have been trying to find the post where linked to the case where the court actually ruled against same sex marraige, I will have to get back to you.

Pace was anti miscogenation. They were not married. They were charged with adultery and fornication. Reynolds was polygamy. You can't find a same sex marriage case because it doesn't exist.

 

[Seawytch]

Anyway, back to the slippery slope ---

If I am right that all the extremely antinatalist and unprecedented changes now occurring are a sort of inchoate effort of people moving as a social organism to try (unsuccessfully so far) to curb dangerous population growth before a crash --- then most of these measures would lessen births, not be pronatalist.

So birth control and abortion and homosexual marriages and seducing little boys and all that would of course tend to reduce population growth. So would incest that results in deformed births, as is common in incest. Coupling with animals, the same, if people start "marrying" their pets, which will surely be next in line.

But what about polygamy? Polygamy, at least Mormon polygamy, results in huge families of offspring. However, I think the general trend is antinatalist. They have to throw the boys away, for one thing: they can't have seven wives for one man if his sons are competing with him for the daughters of his brother. This does not matter demographically if all males who actually do polygamy are fertile because males can always be counted on, normally, to do what they do and beget children on the women. It doesn't matter if there are only 1/7th as many males if those males are fertile. But there is a problem getting enough females --- that's why all polygamy systems always use very young girls and lock them into marriages with relatives early. Polygamy is a bad situation for females and they quickly learn this and if old enough, they try to get out. It's crucial in both Muslim and fundamentalist and pioneer Mormons to lock them in between the ages of 12 and 14, or they lose too many. But that being the case, they HAVE to use incest: all polygamous systems are incestuous for a very obvious reason: not enough females! All nature provides is a one to one ratio, so unless they can kill out the adults of a wagon train and take all the girl children, as the Mormons did once, they have to use nieces, half-sisters, first cousins, etc., and the inbreeding results in a lot of genetic defects and some very strange looking families, very sad. Incest is antinatalist, because incest victims usually can't breed. The restriction in the gene pool by reducing so drastically the number of breeding males of course much increases the incest burden of genetic deformities.

If I'm right, I would expect to see a quick slide down this slippery slope, with all sorts of dire "marriages" starting to occur that are unproductive of normal children: incest, polygamy, animal, as well as homosexual "marriages." More divorces, abortions (especially of female fetuses in many areas of the world: this has a multiplier effect against future births), birth control. The one thing that won't happen is large, healthy families. That only happens when new areas open up, like the large families of colonial America, and there aren't any of those areas at this time.

You're not right. You're just like bigots 50 years ago that predicted the fall of civilization when blacks could marry whites. I quoted some here on this thread.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ah...the "no true Scotsman" argument. Always a fan fave!

If a same sex couple is joined by a religious leader in a marriage ceremony, no different than the ceremony performed for couples of the opposite sex, it's not a marriage if you say it isn't?

The point was that some Indian tribes allowed crazy people to do all sorts of things that, to a biased observer, might appear to be something else. That does not mean they actually treated it that way themselves.

Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom. [...]

European conquest and colonization provides some of the best insight to marital and sexual practices of indigenous peoples across the globe. Examples of same-sex behavior, including transgenerational same-sex unions, have emerged everywhere from New Guinea to Polynesia (and were also prevalent in feudal Japan). The most numerous early accounts of same-sex, transgendered unions exist from European encounters with indigenous people in both North and South America.

The originally derogatory term berdache described transgendered “two-spirit” people prevalent in most of the tribes. Individuals, both male and female, assumed characteristics and roles of the opposite gender and lived out those roles within their tribes. These relationships are easily perceived as “homosexual” by outside observers, but it is clear that the Western delineations of heterosexuality and homosexuality would not have been understood within these societies. Nevertheless, these same-sex marriages had equal cultural and legal recognition within their communities and offered special advantages for the couples, particularly for women berdaches (Rupp, Eskridge).

A History of Gay Marriage

To refute my claim that someone might view something other than it actually is because of their bias you resort to a sight that is clearly biased to see exactly what they want?

Wikipedia seems to imply that there was no such thing as same sex marraige before 2003.

Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is the story of one Indian to get same sex marraige recognized in her tribe.

Among Indian tribes, a division over gay marriage - Washington Post

Unlike you and NYC I do not see this as proof that I am right, I just see it as evidence that, if homosexuality was accepted the way some people claim, it isn't now.

By the way, the fact that someone manifested two spirits would not mean that they were also homosexuals anymore than someone who is cross dresser is today.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Name the same-sex marriage case ruled on by the SCOTUS. I can name the Polygamy case.

You know about Pace v Alabama?

I have been trying to find the post where linked to the case where the court actually ruled against same sex marraige, I will have to get back to you.

Pace was anti miscogenation. They were not married. They were charged with adultery and fornication. Reynolds was polygamy. You can't find a same sex marriage case because it doesn't exist.

Except at least one does.

By the way, Pace also upheld the law against blacks and whites getting married.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Anyway, back to the slippery slope ---

If I am right that all the extremely antinatalist and unprecedented changes now occurring are a sort of inchoate effort of people moving as a social organism to try (unsuccessfully so far) to curb dangerous population growth before a crash --- then most of these measures would lessen births, not be pronatalist.

So birth control and abortion and homosexual marriages and seducing little boys and all that would of course tend to reduce population growth. So would incest that results in deformed births, as is common in incest. Coupling with animals, the same, if people start "marrying" their pets, which will surely be next in line.

But what about polygamy? Polygamy, at least Mormon polygamy, results in huge families of offspring. However, I think the general trend is antinatalist. They have to throw the boys away, for one thing: they can't have seven wives for one man if his sons are competing with him for the daughters of his brother. This does not matter demographically if all males who actually do polygamy are fertile because males can always be counted on, normally, to do what they do and beget children on the women. It doesn't matter if there are only 1/7th as many males if those males are fertile. But there is a problem getting enough females --- that's why all polygamy systems always use very young girls and lock them into marriages with relatives early. Polygamy is a bad situation for females and they quickly learn this and if old enough, they try to get out. It's crucial in both Muslim and fundamentalist and pioneer Mormons to lock them in between the ages of 12 and 14, or they lose too many. But that being the case, they HAVE to use incest: all polygamous systems are incestuous for a very obvious reason: not enough females! All nature provides is a one to one ratio, so unless they can kill out the adults of a wagon train and take all the girl children, as the Mormons did once, they have to use nieces, half-sisters, first cousins, etc., and the inbreeding results in a lot of genetic defects and some very strange looking families, very sad. Incest is antinatalist, because incest victims usually can't breed. The restriction in the gene pool by reducing so drastically the number of breeding males of course much increases the incest burden of genetic deformities.

If I'm right, I would expect to see a quick slide down this slippery slope, with all sorts of dire "marriages" starting to occur that are unproductive of normal children: incest, polygamy, animal, as well as homosexual "marriages." More divorces, abortions (especially of female fetuses in many areas of the world: this has a multiplier effect against future births), birth control. The one thing that won't happen is large, healthy families. That only happens when new areas open up, like the large families of colonial America, and there aren't any of those areas at this time.

Contrary to those who support this farce, you are right. Once opened - Pandora's box simply can not be closed. I laugh at the proposition that somehow, now "gays are equal" as though they haven't been. Homosexuals have taken this as some sort of validation - and, in a nation that has lost its' moral compass - I take it as the beginning of a long slide of Caligua- like actions taken on by Rome (our government).

Homosexuals "pretend" at being normal. They tell themselves that they ARE normal - they are not. Homosexuals "play" house - they "play" at being like the nuclear family. They are not. They are not capable of procreation and they will always be looked at as "freaks" in a system that "protects" them. From what?

The logical "next step" in the "crashing of the system" is polygamy. How can it be denied? If it's "legal" for two men to marry, how the hell can the "justice system" (that farce) deny 4 or 5 people the right to "polyamorous" marriages?? I read recently where Boulder Colorado is one of the leading cities for "polyamorous" relationships. Why should THEY be denied?? Aren't THEY "equal" as well?? And it goes on and on....

Oh yeah....we've started down that "slippery slope". I am anxiously awaiting the "new" Norman Rockwell - who will paint the two Mother's at Thanksgiving, sitting around a table with 5 other "couples", giving thanks to the Government for making them "equal". I am waiting for that painting that shows two limp-wristed men loading up the car with the little African baby they have adopted and heading off to the Christmas celebration at Mom's. I am waiting to see the painting of the 4 women and 1 man holding each other on the 4th of July watching fireworks as their 32 children run around at their feet. And, I especially look forward to the painting of 9 couples sitting around the campfire singing "Kumbaya" and toking up on Mary Jane celebrating their anniversary and praising "Uncle Sam" for FINALLY "making them equal".

It's a farce folks. It's nothing more than play acting at being "real".