Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[JoeB131]

My guess is that the normal suspects won't do any research before they comment on this.
]

If someone is trying to make INcest legal, I'll be right there in the trenches with you against it.

Of course, there are states in this country where you can marry your first cousin, most of which went for Romney last time, but Incest is probably a bad idea. Which is why there are laws against it. Which renders discussion of incestuous marriages moot.

Polygamy- just can't get that worked up about that one. We already have polygamy for the affluent. One is called "the Wife" and the other is called "The Mistress". But I digress.

So, hey, instead of making silly "Slippery slope" arguments, tell us why any of us should care that gays are getting married when we have much more important problems.

 

[JoeB131]

Do you honestly believe that there are not people out there who want incestuous marriages? Polygamous marriages? And so forth? Why will their claims be inferior to those demanding same sex marriages? Once the precedent is established that marriage can mean whatever anyone wants, then that has to go for everyone. There is no limiting principle.

Incest is illegal. Homosexuality is not. Next.

Homosexuality was illegal. Activists agitated to change it.
Next.
Are you really that thick?

Certain sex acts were illegal.

Here's the thing, those sex acts were illegal whether practiced by gays or straights in some states, while other states only made them illegal if gays did them.

Then the courts realized that 99% of people perform oral sex and 38% of straights do anal sex, and there really shouldn't be laws against it. Because that's just darned silly.

 

[Seawytch]

Why do we want to be such a denerate people?

It's part of the gay agenda. They want to break down traditional notions of morality and substitute hedonism. They seem to be making good progress.

I have asked this question many times and I have yet to get a response. What exactly is the "gay agenda"?

What, you've never seen it?

The Homosexual Agenda:

6:00 AM: Gym

8:00 AM: Breakfast (oatmeal, egg whites and mimosas)

9:00 AM: Hair appointment

10:00 AM: Shopping (preferably at Nordstrom's or Saks)

12:00 PM: Brunch

2:00 PM: Assume complete control of the U.S. Federal, state, and local governments, as well as all other forms of world government, destroy all healthy marriages, replace all school counselors in grades K-12 with agents from Colombian and Jamaican drug cartels, bulldoze all houses of worship, secure total control of the INTERNET and all mass media

2:15 PM: Be fabulous

2:30 PM: Mud mask and forty winks of beauty rest to prevent facial

wrinkles from the stress of world conquest

4:00 PM: Cocktails

6:00 PM: Light Dinner (soup, salad with romaine, radicchio, arugula, and balsamic vinaigrette dressing, and PouillyFuisse)

8:00 PM: Theater

10:30 PM: "Do a little dance, make a little love, get down tonight!"

 

[The Rabbi]

Incest is illegal. Homosexuality is not. Next.

Homosexuality was illegal. Activists agitated to change it.
Next.
Are you really that thick?

Right, homosexuality used to be illegal. Now it is not. Do you want to change that? Are you really that much of an unAmerican piece of shit?

OK I guess I have to spell it out for you because you aren't the sharpest tool in the shed.
Homosexuality used to be illegal. Now it isn't. Gay marriage used to be unrecognized. Now it is.
So just because incest happens right now to be illegal does not mean that we could go change that and then allow incestuous marriage. In fact with gay marriage legal the arguments against incestuous marriage tend to fail even more.

 

[The Rabbi]

Having any state approved marriage is equally a slippery slope. Once you allow one group the freedom to do something you open the door for others to do so as well. Personally, I don't think it is the place of the state to tell anyone who they can marry or how many can be in that marriage. So long as the state is in the marriage business, it should not discriminate.

Are you in favor of the state bein gin the divorce, alimony, custody and inheritence business? Because all of them are related.

The state is in that business. So long as it is in that business it should not discriminate. It is not the role of the government to tell you how to live your life.

The state discriminates every day in that business. That's what laws are all about, discriminating between the rightful and lawful and the unlawful and illicit.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why are their claims inferior to different sex marriages?

Because traditional marriage serves a useful function to society as a whole. Gay marriage serves no such function.

And if it was decided that denying you some of your rights serves "a useful function to society as a whole" that would be fine with you? Is that the basis we should use to determine what you can or cannot do with your life? Who do you propose determines what constitutes a "useful function"?

I have news for you. That happens every day. Why do you not have the right to steal and murder? Why do you not have the right to slander people? Why do you not have the right to expose military secrets? All individual rights are balanced against a state interest. That's the basis of Con law.

 

[Seawytch]

Homosexuality was illegal. Activists agitated to change it.
Next.
Are you really that thick?

Right, homosexuality used to be illegal. Now it is not. Do you want to change that? Are you really that much of an unAmerican piece of shit?

OK I guess I have to spell it out for you because you aren't the sharpest tool in the shed.
Homosexuality used to be illegal. Now it isn't. Gay marriage used to be unrecognized. Now it is.
So just because incest happens right now to be illegal does not mean that we could go change that and then allow incestuous marriage. In fact with gay marriage legal the arguments against incestuous marriage tend to fail even more.

Conversely, slavery used to be legal, now it isn't. Interracial marriage used to be illegal, now it isn't. Oops, I think we found the original "slippery slope"...

Or is the slippery slope the 14th Amendment? Representative Andrew King of Missouri, thought so...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Other than the eugenics argument,

what's the case against incestuous marriage?

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's funny how the slippery slope argument always draws the line right after the slippery slope arguers have gotten what they want.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nobody - not same-sex marriage proponents, not the SCOTUS - is trying to redefine marriage as anything that anybody wants. What an utterly ridiculous claim. What supporters of same-sex marriage want is to have gay marriages, unions, recognized and respected like those of opposite-sex marriages. To go from that to, "Now people will legalize bestiality, marry their siblings and practice legal pedophilia", is just fucking stupid.

Nobody? Seriously?

Legalize polygamy: Marriage equality for all. - Slate Magazine

Polygamy was legal long before there was a same sex marriage movement.

 

[G.T.]

Slippery slope?

Ok, so legally allowing straights to marry could be considered the "slippery slope" to legally allowing gays to marry, by the same logic.

So, legally allowing straights to marry becomes the slippery slope to incest?

 

[G.T.]

Right, homosexuality used to be illegal. Now it is not. Do you want to change that? Are you really that much of an unAmerican piece of shit?

OK I guess I have to spell it out for you because you aren't the sharpest tool in the shed.
Homosexuality used to be illegal. Now it isn't. Gay marriage used to be unrecognized. Now it is.
So just because incest happens right now to be illegal does not mean that we could go change that and then allow incestuous marriage. In fact with gay marriage legal the arguments against incestuous marriage tend to fail even more.

Conversely, slavery used to be legal, now it isn't. Interracial marriage used to be illegal, now it isn't. Oops, I think we found the original "slippery slope"...

Or is the slippery slope the 14th Amendment? Representative Andrew King of Missouri, thought so...

Beat me to it.

 

[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.

A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally, is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues.

>>> When "marriage" means whatever anyone wants it to mean then it has no meaning at all.

Your statement has no meaning because no-one except YOU has proposed that marriage means anything anyone wants it to mean.

 

[RKMBrown]

Other than the eugenics argument,

what's the case against incestuous marriage?

Why would you want a list of illegitimate arguments when the legitimate one is staring you in the face?

 

[RKMBrown]

Nobody - not same-sex marriage proponents, not the SCOTUS - is trying to redefine marriage as anything that anybody wants. What an utterly ridiculous claim. What supporters of same-sex marriage want is to have gay marriages, unions, recognized and respected like those of opposite-sex marriages. To go from that to, "Now people will legalize bestiality, marry their siblings and practice legal pedophilia", is just fucking stupid.

Nobody? Seriously?

Legalize polygamy: Marriage equality for all. - Slate Magazine

Polygamy was legal long before there was a same sex marriage movement.

That's because there is nothing wrong with polygamy.

 

[RKMBrown]

It's funny how the slippery slope argument always draws the line right after the slippery slope arguers have gotten what they want.

Funny how people use slippery slope arguments when they don't have a valid argument.

 

[J.E.D]

Homosexuality was illegal. Activists agitated to change it.
Next.
Are you really that thick?

Right, homosexuality used to be illegal. Now it is not. Do you want to change that? Are you really that much of an unAmerican piece of shit?

OK I guess I have to spell it out for you because you aren't the sharpest tool in the shed.

Yeah, I got your "point". I'm just not buying it.

Homosexuality used to be illegal. Now it isn't. Gay marriage used to be unrecognized. Now it is.
So just because incest happens right now to be illegal does not mean that we could go change that and then allow incestuous marriage. In fact with gay marriage legal the arguments against incestuous marriage tend to fail even more.

More red herring bs. Is that all you guys do -- throw red herrings into every argument like it's supposed to mean something?

 

[RKMBrown]

Right, homosexuality used to be illegal. Now it is not. Do you want to change that? Are you really that much of an unAmerican piece of shit?

OK I guess I have to spell it out for you because you aren't the sharpest tool in the shed.

Yeah, I got your "point". I'm just not buying it.

Homosexuality used to be illegal. Now it isn't. Gay marriage used to be unrecognized. Now it is.
So just because incest happens right now to be illegal does not mean that we could go change that and then allow incestuous marriage. In fact with gay marriage legal the arguments against incestuous marriage tend to fail even more.

More red herring bs. Is that all you guys do -- throw red herrings into every argument like it's supposed to mean something?

If you are trying to make a point, you are failing miserably. If you are just trolling, you are also failing miserably.

 

[J.E.D]

Because traditional marriage serves a useful function to society as a whole. Gay marriage serves no such function.

And if it was decided that denying you some of your rights serves "a useful function to society as a whole" that would be fine with you? Is that the basis we should use to determine what you can or cannot do with your life? Who do you propose determines what constitutes a "useful function"?

I have news for you. That happens every day. Why do you not have the right to steal and murder? Why do you not have the right to slander people? Why do you not have the right to expose military secrets? All individual rights are balanced against a state interest. That's the basis of Con law.

You just can't help yourself.

You said it yourself - All individual rights are balanced against a state interest.

You don't have an individual right to be protected from gay marriage. Gay marriage is a union between two consenting adults. This is a free country. You don't like it? Oh well.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Other than the eugenics argument,

what's the case against incestuous marriage?

Why would you want a list of illegitimate arguments when the legitimate one is staring you in the face?

Genetic statistical probabilities are the legitimate reason for banning incestuous marriage?