Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[Seawytch]

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?

I said I don't care, that doesn't mean I believe the argument has any merit.

 

[Seawytch]

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?

They determined there was no Federal question in Baker. (They punted) We had to wait until Windsor and Perry. They punted on Perry. Now we have to wait until the next case to wind it's way through the system.

I think it will be another DOMA challenge, this time to Section II.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Where does "potential harm" fit into what was being discussed? I questioned whether Rabbi thought marriage equality could actually not be the inevitability it clearly is.

We couldn't see what desegregation would do...we did it anyway.

 

[Seawytch]

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]​

Anal or oral sex with anybody, not "gay" sex.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

You mean the gays might help straight marriages instead of "destroy" them as claimed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

They determined there was no Federal question in Baker. (They punted) We had to wait until Windsor and Perry. They punted on Perry. Now we have to wait until the next case to wind it's way through the system.

I think it will be another DOMA challenge, this time to Section II.

I linked to a blog written by lawyers who specialize in constitutional law that explained that, because the case reached the Supreme Court through a mandatory review process, not through certiorari, the dismissal is considered a binding precedent.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Where does "potential harm" fit into what was being discussed? I questioned whether Rabbi thought marriage equality could actually not be the inevitability it clearly is.

We couldn't see what desegregation would do...we did it anyway.

How can you we win until we prove that, ultimately, it doesn't matter?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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]​

Anal or oral sex with anybody, not "gay" sex.

I know what it means. I still insist that it was never illegal to be a homosexual and join the military.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Doesn't really affect me one way or another.

Then enjoy making her feel dirty and nasty.

You mean the gays might help straight marriages instead of "destroy" them as claimed.

I mean that everyone has a right to be offended.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Then enjoy making her feel dirty and nasty.

You mean the gays might help straight marriages instead of "destroy" them as claimed.

I mean that everyone has a right to be offended.

If they can be offended by Christians, we can be offended by homosexuality, polygamy and incest. It's only fair.

 

[RandallFlagg]

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.

Pretender at being normal. You are not.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You mean the gays might help straight marriages instead of "destroy" them as claimed.

I mean that everyone has a right to be offended.

If they can be offended by Christians, we can be offended by homosexuality, polygamy and incest. It's only fair.

Bingo.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I mean that everyone has a right to be offended.

If they can be offended by Christians, we can be offended by homosexuality, polygamy and incest. It's only fair.

Bingo.

Agreed 100%

Groups like these seek to destroy everything good about America. The despise our religion, our patriotism, our freedom - yet we are supposed to embrace the perversion that they call "same sex marriage".

It's just another nail in the coffin for America - and I won't be a part of supporting it.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Where does "potential harm" fit into what was being discussed? I questioned whether Rabbi thought marriage equality could actually not be the inevitability it clearly is.

We couldn't see what desegregation would do...we did it anyway.

How can you we win until we prove that, ultimately, it doesn't matter?

"Marriage equality" (i.e. destruction of marriage as a societal institution) is hardly inevitable. A number of states have already voted to define marriage and enshrined that in their state constitutions.

 

[G.T.]

It's actually inevitable. Numbers don't lie. The trend, especially in the youth who will one day be filling all the positions of public service, is overwhelmingly headed in one direction. Buckle up or die first, but it is inevitable.

 

[Seawytch]

You mean the gays might help straight marriages instead of "destroy" them as claimed.

I mean that everyone has a right to be offended.

If they can be offended by Christians, we can be offended by homosexuality, polygamy and incest. It's only fair.

Except "they" aren't offended by Christians. Many of "them" are Christians. "They" are offended by people who use their religion to justify bigotry, but that's all. It's not a blanket condemnation of ALL Christians as you do to ALL gays.

 

[Seawytch]

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]​

Anal or oral sex with anybody, not "gay" sex.

I know what it means. I still insist that it was never illegal to be a homosexual and join the military.

You are wrong. A gay person could get kicked out of the military simply for stating they were gay. They needn't to have had sex at all, just the admission of sexual orientation was enough.

It wasn't the "sex act" that would get you kicked out...obvious by the number of straights who got their knob polished or packed some lady fudge while in uniform.

It was "illegal" to "be" gay, not just have sex with a member of the same sex. You could get kicked out without ever having had sex with a member of the same sex.

 

[Seawytch]

Where does "potential harm" fit into what was being discussed? I questioned whether Rabbi thought marriage equality could actually not be the inevitability it clearly is.

We couldn't see what desegregation would do...we did it anyway.

How can you we win until we prove that, ultimately, it doesn't matter?

"Marriage equality" (i.e. destruction of marriage as a societal institution) is hardly inevitable. A number of states have already voted to define marriage and enshrined that in their state constitutions.

Of course it is, but if deluding yourself makes you feel better, have at it.

Enjoy Alabama and Mississippi!

 

[Gadawg73]

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]​

Anal or oral sex with anybody, not "gay" sex.

I know what it means. I still insist that it was never illegal to be a homosexual and join the military.

Has it ever been illegal "to be heterosexual and join the military"?
NO, but the law was as I posted verbatim if one WAS homosexual they COULD NOT JOIN THE ARMED FORCES.
Gave it to you verbatim and you ignore it.
Want me to post it again as it says NOTHING ABOUT SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, just HOMOSEXUAL.

 

[Gadawg73]

Why did Barry Goldwater call for open service in the military long ago if "it was not illegal for homosexuals to join the military".
We have a friend of the family that was an interpreter in Germany and he was thrown out under DADT for CHATTING WITH A GAY MAN ON LINE, never had met him. No sex involved. He stated "yes, I am gay" and he was booted out.
You people need to quit the BS.
Do you folks believe that only gay folks humping each other in the shower in the barracks were THE ONLY HOMOSEXUALS banned from the military?
I am sure some right wing blog somewhere told you that as your talking points but it is false.
Go with what the law is.