Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well, I see this thread has come to the end of its useful lifetime.

It was interesting while it was interesting, though.

Given its premise is a fallacy, this thread was stillborn.

 

[RKMBrown]

Why try to change people? That's pretty arrogant and intrusive.

You could just mind your own business: everyone would like that better.

If your goal is to mind your own business... what are you doing here?

There you go again, putting words into my post I never said.

Did I say my goal was to mind my own business?
Nope. I was talking to someone else.

My business now is to tell you to quit twisting everything I say! Darn. I'm beginning to wonder about your reading and comprehension skills.

Do you really not understand what a question is? Or was it the "if" that through you off?

 

[Seawytch]

I hate to point out the obvious, but anyone who doesn't follow the teachings of Jesus is not a Christian, even if they believe they are.

And Jesus said what about gays?

If you have to ask you wouldn't believe me when I answered.

You've answered it for us already with your inability to provide what Jesus ever said about gays....because he said nothing. He said a thing or two about divorce and I don't see a lot of people questioning the divorcees "Christian-ness".

 

[AlexanderIV]

This argument fails to even establish these concepts are even on the same slope...

First, there is a distinct state interest in preventing incest while there are no vaild concerns to stop homosexual unions. Marriage between two men or two women is no longer stigmatized by faux-medical concerns, while incest has clear and documented medical consequences that would be incredibly harmful to the community at large if it was commonly practiced. Therefore, one can legally be outlawed while the other cannot.

Second, marriage between two men or two women maintain all the distinct physical (and more importantly, taxable) characteristics of modern heterosexual marriage: a committed and equal union between two people. Conversely, polygamy is inherently centered on an unequal union that goes well and beyond modern marriage parameters. To argue the polygamist marriage of, say, one man to multiple woman (a setup often rooted in misogyny and sexism and dangerous power dynamics) is to expand the term marriage far and beyond anything it is today.

To say it differently: if you are going to try and justify homophobia, you better find a new argument.

 

[RKMBrown]

Well, I see this thread has come to the end of its useful lifetime.

It was interesting while it was interesting, though.

Is that what you are here for? To tell people to shut up and call an end to the thread?

 

[Circe]

Well, I see this thread has come to the end of its useful lifetime.

It was interesting while it was interesting, though.

Is that what you are here for? To tell people to shut up and call an end to the thread?

That's it! Let's see if it works.

 

[RKMBrown]

And Jesus said what about gays?

If you have to ask you wouldn't believe me when I answered.

You've answered it for us already with your inability to provide what Jesus ever said about gays....because he said nothing. He said a thing or two about divorce and I don't see a lot of people questioning the divorcees "Christian-ness".

He's probably off looking for stones to throw.

 

[bodecea]

Let me ask, since you seem to have some kind of answer you are withholding...."And Jesus said what about gays?"

crickets.

Crickets have nothing to do with it.

Sure.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And Jesus said what about gays?

If you have to ask you wouldn't believe me when I answered.

You've answered it for us already with your inability to provide what Jesus ever said about gays....because he said nothing. He said a thing or two about divorce and I don't see a lot of people questioning the divorcees "Christian-ness".

You know everything he said?

Didn't think so.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This argument fails to even establish these concepts are even on the same slope...

First, there is a distinct state interest in preventing incest while there are no vaild concerns to stop homosexual unions. Marriage between two men or two women is no longer stigmatized by faux-medical concerns, while incest has clear and documented medical consequences that would be incredibly harmful to the community at large if it was commonly practiced. Therefore, one can legally be outlawed while the other cannot.

Second, marriage between two men or two women maintain all the distinct physical (and more importantly, taxable) characteristics of modern heterosexual marriage: a committed and equal union between two people. Conversely, polygamy is inherently centered on an unequal union that goes well and beyond modern marriage parameters. To argue the polygamist marriage of, say, one man to multiple woman (a setup often rooted in misogyny and sexism and dangerous power dynamics) is to expand the term marriage far and beyond anything it is today.

To say it differently: if you are going to try and justify homophobia, you better find a new argument.

What is the state interest in stopping consenting adults from having sex based on who they are related to, and why does the state have the power to invade people's bedrooms to find out who they are having sex with?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

crickets.

Crickets have nothing to do with it.

Sure.

Some people take themselves way too seriously.

 

[BlueGin]

If the purpose of marriage is to create a new family among consenting adults, then marrying someone who is already a family member doesn't make sense. As to polygamy, go ahead and make it legal. In polygamist marriages now one one husband and wife are "legally" married and the rest of the wives are spiritually married. Who the heck really cares?

But wait a minute ... this is really a Martin-Zimmerman thread, right? You want use to call someone racist or talk about the right to self-defense, right? This has got to be a SYG thread, right? Because no one would respond to it unless it was.

I guess you have never heard of cousins who marry each other. Has happened for centuries.

 

[Seawytch]

If you have to ask you wouldn't believe me when I answered.

You've answered it for us already with your inability to provide what Jesus ever said about gays....because he said nothing. He said a thing or two about divorce and I don't see a lot of people questioning the divorcees "Christian-ness".

You know everything he said?

Didn't think so.

Couldn't find anything eh?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You've answered it for us already with your inability to provide what Jesus ever said about gays....because he said nothing. He said a thing or two about divorce and I don't see a lot of people questioning the divorcees "Christian-ness".

You know everything he said?

Didn't think so.

Couldn't find anything eh?

Why would I look? The simple fact is you are a fool if you say that Jesus never said anything about homosexuals because no one knows if he did or not, all you know is that no one wrote it down if he did. That is why I said you wouldn't like the answer, you want to pretend that the fact that he didn't say anything proves something. It doesn't.

 

[Seawytch]

You know everything he said?

Didn't think so.

Couldn't find anything eh?

Why would I look? The simple fact is you are a fool if you say that Jesus never said anything about homosexuals because no one knows if he did or not, all you know is that no one wrote it down if he did. That is why I said you wouldn't like the answer, you want to pretend that the fact that he didn't say anything proves something. It doesn't.

Oh, so you're being silly. All we know of what Jesus says is the bible. In the bible, Jesus never said a damn thing.

Why is it nobody calls the fornicators, adulterers, covetors, drunks, etc. "fake Christians"? No, only the gay ones, despite Jesus being completely mum on the subject.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Couldn't find anything eh?

Why would I look? The simple fact is you are a fool if you say that Jesus never said anything about homosexuals because no one knows if he did or not, all you know is that no one wrote it down if he did. That is why I said you wouldn't like the answer, you want to pretend that the fact that he didn't say anything proves something. It doesn't.

Oh, so you're being silly. All we know of what Jesus says is the bible. In the bible, Jesus never said a damn thing.

Why is it nobody calls the fornicators, adulterers, covetors, drunks, etc. "fake Christians"? No, only the gay ones, despite Jesus being completely mum on the subject.

Actually, you are wrong, (by omission) yet again. True, Jesus never spoke DIRECTLY about homosexuality, however he DID say this when He spoke about marriage, He affirmed it as an institution between a male and a female. In Matthew 19, the Pharisees asked Him what He thought about divorce, hoping to trap Him into disagreeing with Moses and therefore finding reason for condemning Him. Now, in Jesus’ response about why divorce is a bad thing and a result of the hardness of human hearts, Jesus says, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

So, yes, Jesus never actually addressed homosexuality, but he made it quite clear that marriage is between a man and a woman - not two "pretenders".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Couldn't find anything eh?

Why would I look? The simple fact is you are a fool if you say that Jesus never said anything about homosexuals because no one knows if he did or not, all you know is that no one wrote it down if he did. That is why I said you wouldn't like the answer, you want to pretend that the fact that he didn't say anything proves something. It doesn't.

Oh, so you're being silly. All we know of what Jesus says is the bible. In the bible, Jesus never said a damn thing.

Why is it nobody calls the fornicators, adulterers, covetors, drunks, etc. "fake Christians"? No, only the gay ones, despite Jesus being completely mum on the subject.

I am never silly.

Or always silly, I get them confused.

As for whether we know about Jesus talking about homosexuals, that would actually depend on who you believe Jesus is, wouldn't it? Since most Christians believe he is God it would be pretty easy to argue that he actually did say something about it, even if he wasn't human at the time.

Would you like a list of people that call fornicators, adulterers, and drunks fake Christians, or do you want to admit that you are going to lose on that stupid argument before I go to the trouble? I can even give you a list of Christians that think people who speak in tongues aren't real Christians if it would help you admit you are wrong.

 

[The Rabbi]

Bullshit. "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

Show me your due process.

Who is being deprived of due process? Do you even know what the fuck you're babbling about?

The gays... and yes I do know what I'm talking about.

Show me one gay person deprived of due process. I wont hold my breath.

 

[Gadawg73]

If the purpose of marriage is to create a new family among consenting adults, then marrying someone who is already a family member doesn't make sense. As to polygamy, go ahead and make it legal. In polygamist marriages now one one husband and wife are "legally" married and the rest of the wives are spiritually married. Who the heck really cares?

But wait a minute ... this is really a Martin-Zimmerman thread, right? You want use to call someone racist or talk about the right to self-defense, right? This has got to be a SYG thread, right? Because no one would respond to it unless it was.

I guess you have never heard of cousins who marry each other. Has happened for centuries.

Still legal in many states as long as they are not gay.
Can't have that.

 

[RKMBrown]

Why would I look? The simple fact is you are a fool if you say that Jesus never said anything about homosexuals because no one knows if he did or not, all you know is that no one wrote it down if he did. That is why I said you wouldn't like the answer, you want to pretend that the fact that he didn't say anything proves something. It doesn't.

Oh, so you're being silly. All we know of what Jesus says is the bible. In the bible, Jesus never said a damn thing.

Why is it nobody calls the fornicators, adulterers, covetors, drunks, etc. "fake Christians"? No, only the gay ones, despite Jesus being completely mum on the subject.

Actually, you are wrong, (by omission) yet again. True, Jesus never spoke DIRECTLY about homosexuality, however he DID say this when He spoke about marriage, He affirmed it as an institution between a male and a female. In Matthew 19, the Pharisees asked Him what He thought about divorce, hoping to trap Him into disagreeing with Moses and therefore finding reason for condemning Him. Now, in Jesus’ response about why divorce is a bad thing and a result of the hardness of human hearts, Jesus says, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

So, yes, Jesus never actually addressed homosexuality, but he made it quite clear that marriage is between a man and a woman - not two "pretenders".

Putting words in gods mouth now? Wow you don't think much of yourself do you.