Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[Quantum Windbag]

You were when you went through MEPS...oh yea you will say you did not turn lesbian until after MEPS. Same standard lie. I served in the Navy from 1979 until 2003. I saw all the games you lesbians played and I had the pleasure to help boot of few of you out.

I was asked if I had ever "engaged in homosexual activity". I had not.

you served while being gay before it was legal. You served dishonestly and you know it end of story.

It was never illegal to be gay and serve in the military, it was illegal to engage in homosexual sex and serve.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I played ball with a big un man mountain OL in high school for 3 years. Our team was the first integrated team in the county in the mid 60s. "Caterpillar" Bulldozer Chatham hated blacks and said so daily. He was a senior my sophomore year.
I was raised right to respect everyone and not judge them so having to listen to 'CatDozer in the locker room every day was not pleasant.
But he was not trying to bull shit us with rank rhetoric.
We knew where he stands.
You folks call gay folk perverts here all the while you claim you have no problems with them except gay marriage.

They are perverts, so am I, and so are you. If that offends you, tough shit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

It's perfectly acceptable for a government to define marriage as limited to two people. Government has to set rules for how life applies to benefits, which is the true burr under the saddle on this issue, it can limit participation to pairs, just can't make any specific requirements on them.

Current rules for Social Security sharing state that people have to be married for 10 years if it ends in divorce for the marriage to count.

The rules just have to apply the same for everyone.

It was perfectly acceptable for the government to define marraige as only applying to people of different sexes, why should people who want to build a larger family be exempted from whatever protection you imagine it is the government bestows on married people?

 

[Gadawg73]

I played ball with a big un man mountain OL in high school for 3 years. Our team was the first integrated team in the county in the mid 60s. "Caterpillar" Bulldozer Chatham hated blacks and said so daily. He was a senior my sophomore year.
I was raised right to respect everyone and not judge them so having to listen to 'CatDozer in the locker room every day was not pleasant.
But he was not trying to bull shit us with rank rhetoric.
We knew where he stands.
You folks call gay folk perverts here all the while you claim you have no problems with them except gay marriage.

They are perverts, so am I, and so are you. If that offends you, tough shit.

I am not offended at anything like you folks are with gay marriage.
Speak for yourself. I am not a pervert.

 

[Gadawg73]

I was asked if I had ever "engaged in homosexual activity". I had not.

you served while being gay before it was legal. You served dishonestly and you know it end of story.

It was never illegal to be gay and serve in the military, it was illegal to engage in homosexual sex and serve.

Why do you make shit up out of thin air?

The rule was up until the 1940s was "homosexuals, irrespective of sex, should not be permitted to serve in any branch of the armed forces in any capacity and prompt separation of known homosexuals from the armed services is mandatory"
NOTHING said about engaging in any homosexual SEX AT ALL.
Anyone that was gay or lesbian was barred FROM ENTERING the military if they stated they were homosexual.
Geez man, give it up. Your spin is out there.

 

[Seawytch]

I was asked if I had ever "engaged in homosexual activity". I had not.

you served while being gay before it was legal. You served dishonestly and you know it end of story.

It was never illegal to be gay and serve in the military, it was illegal to engage in homosexual sex and serve.

You might want to re-read Article 125 of the UCMJ.

 

[Seawytch]

Yeah it's a delusion all right
Gay Marriage Ban Passes In North Carolina : It's All Politics : NPR

But you DO realize that opposing marriage equality is the losing side, right? Can y'all at least acknowledge that?

Get back to me in 200 years.

Oh god, you're not one of those "fall of Rome" folks are you?

 

[Seawytch]

I've been married to my same sex partner of 17 years for 4 1/2. Is it wrong for me to delight in the idea that it makes Circe feel all "nasty"?

Only if you think it is wrong for redneck assholes to get hot when they imagine the two of you in bed.

Doesn't really affect me one way or another.

 

[Seawytch]

Again - you are a pretender. a play actor. There is nothing "real" about your relationship. Do I care? Absolutely not. But for you to puff your chest out like you (and yours) have "accomplished something" is nonsense.

You guys live by legalese. "Laws" don't lend credence to decadence. They only "legalize" it.

Sorry, just because you "think" so, doesn't make it true.

Of course we've accomplished something...but there is still more to accomplish. Repealing the rest of DOMA is a first step.

Look, there is something that you need to understand about me (and most likely) most folks of my age. I believe, with all my heart, that we ALL have an inherent RIGHT to happiness. I don't care what your political leanings are, I don't care what color you are, I don't care if you are straight or gay. I don't care if you are a man or a woman. life is short as hell and we ALL have a right to go through it with someone we love.

I have no problem whatsoever with civil unions for gay folks. Never have. What I have a problem is when gays DEMAND that "straight" folks accept their lifestyle and endorse it with "marriage". Again, it is nothing more than a stunt, perpetrated by outlandish behavior that seeks to destroy the institutions like the Church and the nuclear family.

I have no problem with Civil Unions...for heterosexual folks too. I do (and so do the courts) with separate but equal.

Again, no matter what gays do, they will ALWAYS be looked at as "pretenders" looking for validation for a perverse lifestyle that a very small segment of society indulges in. Conservatives, while turning a blind eye to your behavior, will never recognize your "marriages" as valid. They will ALWAYS look at them as "phony".

Get used to it.

You just stated your personal opinion and only yours. You might want to check the polls again and the breakdown. This isn't a partisan issue anymore because the gay kids of conservatives are coming out too.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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.

It's perfectly acceptable for a government to define marriage as limited to two people. Government has to set rules for how life applies to benefits, which is the true burr under the saddle on this issue, it can limit participation to pairs, just can't make any specific requirements on them.

Current rules for Social Security sharing state that people have to be married for 10 years if it ends in divorce for the marriage to count.

The rules just have to apply the same for everyone.

It was perfectly acceptable for the government to define marraige as only applying to people of different sexes, why should people who want to build a larger family be exempted from whatever protection you imagine it is the government bestows on married people?

No. Defining marriage as between a male and a female is NOT the same as limiting the definition of marriage to 2 people.

If we can't agree on that premise, we'll have to agree to disagree on the whole thing.

 

[Seawytch]

What?

The case you quoted was talking about modern recognition. Same sex unions were performed by indigenous peoples throughout Europe and the Americas. You might have noted the references at the end of the link I provided?

I didn't quote a case.

No one "performed" weddings in Indian tribes, couples did it themselves.

By the way, look up Baker v Nelson and admit that there is actually a SCOTUS decision about same sex marriage before Perry v Schwarzenegger and Golinski.

(Sorry it took me so long to dig it up again.)

Indigenous same sex couples had the exact same ceremonies that indigenous opposite sex couples had and their partnerships were recognized by the tribe.

SCOTUS didn't rule in Baker.

 

[Seawytch]

It makes normal marriage nasty, as it's being lumped in with various and sundry assorted sex perversions.

There already is very little normal marriage left, and there will be less and less and less. Why should normal people want to be married if all that means is something nasty homosexuals do?

I am guessing that within ten years the only people who get "married" will be a catalog of sex perverts. The government will have to reorganize old-age pensions on a completely different basis, and high time, too.

Does anyone still wonder why anti gay marriage arguments keep losing in court?

Have you come up with any reason why the same arguments do not apply to incestuous relationships or polygamy?

Didn't think so, especially when you consider the fact that the court overturned a previous precedent regarding same sex marriage.

The SCOTUS has never overturned previous precedent before on anything else that didnt lead to dogs and cats living together?

Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)

(Previously mentioned) Pace v. Alabama (1883)

Adler v. Board of Education (1952)

Explain how correctly applying the 14th amendment to gay couples is any more a "slippery slope" {cough} (fallacy) to incest and polygamy than applying it to interracial couples would be?

However, if a polygamist or incestual marriage case ever successfully petitions the SCOTUS to overturn prohibitions against their relationships and marriages, I won't lose any sleep.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I played ball with a big un man mountain OL in high school for 3 years. Our team was the first integrated team in the county in the mid 60s. "Caterpillar" Bulldozer Chatham hated blacks and said so daily. He was a senior my sophomore year.
I was raised right to respect everyone and not judge them so having to listen to 'CatDozer in the locker room every day was not pleasant.
But he was not trying to bull shit us with rank rhetoric.
We knew where he stands.
You folks call gay folk perverts here all the while you claim you have no problems with them except gay marriage.

They are perverts, so am I, and so are you. If that offends you, tough shit.

I am not offended at anything like you folks are with gay marriage.
Speak for yourself. I am not a pervert.

There you go again. Pull your fucking head out of your damned ass and stop assuming things about people just because you are an asshole statist. The only thing that offends me is pretentious assholes that insist on forcing everyone else to go along with their views by calling out the Army to enforce their point of view when they cannot come up with a legitimate argument.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

you served while being gay before it was legal. You served dishonestly and you know it end of story.

It was never illegal to be gay and serve in the military, it was illegal to engage in homosexual sex and serve.

Why do you make shit up out of thin air?

The rule was up until the 1940s was "homosexuals, irrespective of sex, should not be permitted to serve in any branch of the armed forces in any capacity and prompt separation of known homosexuals from the armed services is mandatory"
NOTHING said about engaging in any homosexual SEX AT ALL.
Anyone that was gay or lesbian was barred FROM ENTERING the military if they stated they were homosexual.
Geez man, give it up. Your spin is out there.

You accuse me of making things up and then post that drivel? Why don't you show me what law made it illegal to be in the military and be attracted to the same sex if you never acted on it, which is what I said, or even if you didn't talk about it. In fact, feel free to show me where it was illegal to say you were gay and join the military.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

you served while being gay before it was legal. You served dishonestly and you know it end of story.

It was never illegal to be gay and serve in the military, it was illegal to engage in homosexual sex and serve.

You might want to re-read Article 125 of the UCMJ.

Let me do that.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.[/FONT]
​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.[/FONT]


​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Damn, nat a goddamned thing about thinking about it.

I was right.

So were you, or did you miss the part where I agreed with you?

Imagine that.[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Want to admit it, or are you going to pretend I said something else?
[/FONT]​

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But you DO realize that opposing marriage equality is the losing side, right? Can y'all at least acknowledge that?

Get back to me in 200 years.

Oh god, you're not one of those "fall of Rome" folks are you?

No, I am just pointing out the obvious, the debate about any potential harm is not over until we have had time to look at all the data. I don't see any potential of harm myself, but I am smart enough to know that I don't know everything.

If only more people were smart enough to realize that they don't either.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I've been married to my same sex partner of 17 years for 4 1/2. Is it wrong for me to delight in the idea that it makes Circe feel all "nasty"?

Only if you think it is wrong for redneck assholes to get hot when they imagine the two of you in bed.

Doesn't really affect me one way or another.

Then enjoy making her feel dirty and nasty.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's perfectly acceptable for a government to define marriage as limited to two people. Government has to set rules for how life applies to benefits, which is the true burr under the saddle on this issue, it can limit participation to pairs, just can't make any specific requirements on them.

Current rules for Social Security sharing state that people have to be married for 10 years if it ends in divorce for the marriage to count.

The rules just have to apply the same for everyone.

It was perfectly acceptable for the government to define marraige as only applying to people of different sexes, why should people who want to build a larger family be exempted from whatever protection you imagine it is the government bestows on married people?

No. Defining marriage as between a male and a female is NOT the same as limiting the definition of marriage to 2 people.

If we can't agree on that premise, we'll have to agree to disagree on the whole thing.

The intent of this thread is to make people think, and articulate, their positions.

What, exactly, makes it legal to discriminate against 3 people when it is illegal to discriminate against 2?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The case you quoted was talking about modern recognition. Same sex unions were performed by indigenous peoples throughout Europe and the Americas. You might have noted the references at the end of the link I provided?

I didn't quote a case.

No one "performed" weddings in Indian tribes, couples did it themselves.

By the way, look up Baker v Nelson and admit that there is actually a SCOTUS decision about same sex marriage before Perry v Schwarzenegger and Golinski.

(Sorry it took me so long to dig it up again.)

Indigenous same sex couples had the exact same ceremonies that indigenous opposite sex couples had and their partnerships were recognized by the tribe.

SCOTUS didn't rule in Baker.

Baker is a precedent because of the way they ruled, want to try again?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Does anyone still wonder why anti gay marriage arguments keep losing in court?

Have you come up with any reason why the same arguments do not apply to incestuous relationships or polygamy?

Didn't think so, especially when you consider the fact that the court overturned a previous precedent regarding same sex marriage.

The SCOTUS has never overturned previous precedent before on anything else that didnt lead to dogs and cats living together?

Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)

(Previously mentioned) Pace v. Alabama (1883)

Adler v. Board of Education (1952)

Explain how correctly applying the 14th amendment to gay couples is any more a "slippery slope" {cough} (fallacy) to incest and polygamy than applying it to interracial couples would be?

However, if a polygamist or incestual marriage case ever successfully petitions the SCOTUS to overturn prohibitions against their relationships and marriages, I won't lose any sleep.

If you don't have a problem with them making it legal why are you arguing with me about this in the first place?