Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[Soggy in NOLA]

i'd care but i don't. freedom of choice is a wonderful thing

There's a difference between freedom of choice and utter degeneracy... but we wouldn't expect you to understand this.

 

[rightwinger]

It's that damned slippery slope

I told you it would happen as soon as we let blacks and whites marry

 

[JakeStarkey]

The state has always had the power over marriage and marrying one's family members.

Polygamy is only a matter of time before being legalized (again).

There is no slippery slope of falling back into euro-centric marriage practices.

 

[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?

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

Yes.

 

[rightwinger]

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

Yes.

Prove it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Yes.

Then why aren't genetic risks not associated with incest also banned from marrying,

and since they aren't, isn't that a simple, irrefutable argument that bans on incestuous marriage are discriminatory?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The professor is right in most of what he says, but there is one important error, if I read him correctly.

He seems to be arguing that expanding marriage beyond one man-one woman is what creates the slippery slope.

He is wrong. If there is a slippery slope at all, it was created with the legal recognition of one man - one woman marriage itself.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Actually if you had bothered to read the OP you would have seen this is not true.
But even so my post did not posit that anyone said that. However it is the logical conclusion of the gay marriage debate. If marriage can be defined any way some special interest group wants it defined then it loses all definition and becomes meaningless.
Sort of like your post.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Actually if you had bothered to read the OP you would have seen this is not true.
But even so my post did not posit that anyone said that. However it is the logical conclusion of the gay marriage debate. If marriage can be defined any way some special interest group wants it defined then it loses all definition and becomes meaningless.
Sort of like your post.

Because it is defined differently than one likes does not make marriage meaningless.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

Yes.

That's why we bar carriers of Tay Sachs disease from marrying?

Oops. Guess you failed that test, big guy.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Actually if you had bothered to read the OP you would have seen this is not true.
But even so my post did not posit that anyone said that. However it is the logical conclusion of the gay marriage debate. If marriage can be defined any way some special interest group wants it defined then it loses all definition and becomes meaningless.
Sort of like your post.

Because it is defined differently than one likes does not make marriage meaningless.

True but irrelevant.
It is because it is subject to being defined by any special interest that wants it. Like the homo lobby. Or soon to tbe the pervert lobby.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Or the Christian lobby, or the Muslim lobby, or the Navajo lobby, or the Mormon lobby.

Your argument is meaningless.

Marriage is marriage, period.

 

[The Rabbi]

Or the Christian lobby, or the Muslim lobby, or the Navajo lobby, or the Mormon lobby.

Your argument is meaningless.

Marriage is marriage, period.

You prove my point and then posit it is meaningless. Only Jake, King of the Unsubtantiated Statement, could say this.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Actually if you had bothered to read the OP you would have seen this is not true.
But even so my post did not posit that anyone said that. However it is the logical conclusion of the gay marriage debate. If marriage can be defined any way some special interest group wants it defined then it loses all definition and becomes meaningless.
Sort of like your post.

NO. When marriage becomes 'meaningless' is when you select out one variety of marriage and bestow government benefits upon it to the exclusion of all other legitimate forms of marriage.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Actually if you had bothered to read the OP you would have seen this is not true.
But even so my post did not posit that anyone said that. However it is the logical conclusion of the gay marriage debate. If marriage can be defined any way some special interest group wants it defined then it loses all definition and becomes meaningless.
Sort of like your post.

NO. When marriage becomes 'meaningless' is when you select out one variety of marriage and bestow government benefits upon it to the exclusion of all other legitimate forms of marriage.

How is that meaningless? That defines marriage. No one selected one man one woman as the definition. That has been the accepted definition in Western Culture for 2,000 years.

You're a dunce-face.

 

[RKMBrown]

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

Yes.

Then why aren't genetic risks not associated with incest also banned from marrying,

and since they aren't, isn't that a simple, irrefutable argument that bans on incestuous marriage are discriminatory?

Yes. We discriminate against murders too.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Or the Christian lobby, or the Muslim lobby, or the Navajo lobby, or the Mormon lobby.

Your argument is meaningless.

Marriage is marriage, period.

You prove my point and then posit it is meaningless. Only Jake, King of the Unsubtantiated Statement, could say this.

You have proved nothing. Marriage is marriage with all of its privileges and reciprocities and responsibilities. That is marriage, the core of it.

You fail. Simply don't marry someone of your own sex.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes.

Then why aren't genetic risks not associated with incest also banned from marrying,

and since they aren't, isn't that a simple, irrefutable argument that bans on incestuous marriage are discriminatory?

Yes. We discriminate against murders too.

Now here is an example I will use as a false derivative analogy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes.

Then why aren't genetic risks not associated with incest also banned from marrying,

and since they aren't, isn't that a simple, irrefutable argument that bans on incestuous marriage are discriminatory?

Yes. We discriminate against murders too.

Laws against murder are not unconstitutional, therefore murderers who are held accountable to the law are not being discriminated against.