Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[DarkLion]

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.

People have been promising me that gay rights will lead to legalizing zoophilia for years, and I'm still waiting. It's bullshit. Gays have their rights, and now they don't give a fuck about the rights of anyone else.

 

[FA_Q2]

That doesn't even make sense if I ignore the scientific evidence that people are not born gay.

Except there is no scientific evidence that says that. Consensus among scientists is that orientation is not a choice.

Pawlenty says Scientists are in Dispute Over Whether Gay is a Choice

There is no link in that opinion peace that even begins to back up their position. Could that be because there is no scientific evidence, or a scientific consensus, that people are born gay? Would you like to admit I am right, or do you want to throw another opinion piece at me that doesn't prove me wrong?

First, scientific ‘consensus’ is meaningless and a bullshit term. By the very core of what science is and means; consensus is meaningless. If consensus meant anything, the earth would still be the center of the universe.

Second, I would really like to see this ‘proof’ that gay is a choice rather than something that we are. I think that you are blowing smoke because that is not true. Science is leaning in the other direction in that concept. Gay is not a choice. Here is a new theory that might just shed some light on the fact that there is no gay gene but that there is a relationship with genetics that causes homosexuality:

New Insight into the (Epi)Genetic Roots of Homosexuality | TIME.com

And time does some more articles that are interesting and cover such questions as why does the gay tendency in genes not die off:

Born Gay? - TIME

Interestingly, it shows that of you have gay relatives, you are far more prone to be gay. Again, this challenges the supposition that such things are choices.

Now, where are your scientific researchers that find gay is not due to conditions in genes and birth?

Last, the conditions that create gay people, whether a decision or born or environmental, are utterly meaningless in the legal debate. If you have a legal right to marry then that right extends universally and the state has no right to define what contract you can enter with another consenting adult. If you do not have that right then the state should not be involved. They really should not be involved anyway but that is another thread.

 

[FA_Q2]

That's not what equal protection means. Equal protection is when the same law is applied to different people differently. Equal protection isn't a formula, it's the same law applied the same way. You're black, you can't use this government bathroom. Clear violation. However, with gays, the law is applied the same way. Straights and gays can enter into a man/woman marriage, neither can enter into a heterosexual marriage. There is no, but I WANT something different in the law, sorry.

There is a solution, it's called the, wait for it, legislature. Do it the right way, not with word parsing formulas.

Sorry, but no. Women can’t marry women is no different than saying that black cant marry white. You are twisting equal protection into something that it is not. Equal protection means, as you said, that all laws are applied in the same manner to all people. The fact is that the law is not being applied equally from one sex to another – a woman cannot marry another woman but a man can. A man cannot marry another man but a woman can. That is not equal protection; that is defining the application of the law based on the particular group that you belong to (in this case sex, in the former race).

Deer season isn't fair, I don't want to hunt hunt deer, I want to hunt pheasants, it's a violation of equal protection. Instead of persuading anyone that I should be able to hunt pheasant in deer season, I'm going to run to a judge to order them to let me because it's a violation of my constitutional rights.

Note that the word ‘fair’ was nowhere in my comment. Note that I was talking about applying law differently to men and women and you are simply stomping your foot demanding that you want to do something that is against the law for EVERYONE.

Is this what you do kaz when you have no real argument? I know that you are better than this so I will chalk it up to posters annoying you over the 80 some pages in this thread but please, produce something better than this. I value your input here and I know you can put up a real argument.

Again, what the state is doing is applying a law to men and women DIFFERENTLY. That is your equal protection law. One set of people are following a different set of rules than the other set of people. There is no way around that so we either acknowledge that the government has the ability to declare something illegal for one person because they are not a member of a specific class or the government does not. There really is no other way around that. I, for one, am not ready to cede the power of selectively applying the law to government yet. That is wrong in so many ways to me.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yes they are limited by the 10th amendment. The 10th amendment states specifically what powers the states have and don't have.

By stating what powers the states do not have, the 10th amendment is setting limits.

I'm gonna guess you don't even know what the word specific means.

The 10th amendment specifies 'powers not delegated to the federal government' and 'powers not prohibited by the Constitution'.

Those are the two specific categories of limitations.

It's like telling your kid he can go hang out with his friends, but he has to be home by 10.

See? You've given him the 'power' to do something or things, but you've placed a limitation on it.

btw the 10 amendment is effectively superfluous. It merely restates in a summary what the Constitution in sum total does without saying so.

And here we see the worst example of twisting the constitution by the left. The declaration that an amendment of the constitution is ‘superfluous’ because it is a ‘summery.’

That is how you eliminate amendments and ignore them out of hand: call them meaningless. If that were true then there would not be a 10th amendment. There is and it states something quite clearly, something that the left has ignored damn near a century now – that the states are NOT mere extensions of the federal government but that they have real and constitutional powers OVER the federal government.

You would like to point to the supremacy clause but it only says what you want it to say IF you completely ignore the 10th amendment. Convenient for you, isn’t it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I'm gonna guess you don't even know what the word specific means.

The 10th amendment specifies 'powers not delegated to the federal government' and 'powers not prohibited by the Constitution'.

Those are the two specific categories of limitations.

It's like telling your kid he can go hang out with his friends, but he has to be home by 10.

See? You've given him the 'power' to do something or things, but you've placed a limitation on it.

btw the 10 amendment is effectively superfluous. It merely restates in a summary what the Constitution in sum total does without saying so.

And here we see the worst example of twisting the constitution by the left. The declaration that an amendment of the constitution is ‘superfluous’ because it is a ‘summery.’

That is how you eliminate amendments and ignore them out of hand: call them meaningless. If that were true then there would not be a 10th amendment. There is and it states something quite clearly, something that the left has ignored damn near a century now – that the states are NOT mere extensions of the federal government but that they have real and constitutional powers OVER the federal government.

You would like to point to the supremacy clause but it only says what you want it to say IF you completely ignore the 10th amendment. Convenient for you, isn’t it.

Please enumerate the exact real and constitutional powers OVER the federal government that the states have.

 

[FA_Q2]

The 10th amendment specifies 'powers not delegated to the federal government' and 'powers not prohibited by the Constitution'.

Those are the two specific categories of limitations.

It's like telling your kid he can go hang out with his friends, but he has to be home by 10.

See? You've given him the 'power' to do something or things, but you've placed a limitation on it.

btw the 10 amendment is effectively superfluous. It merely restates in a summary what the Constitution in sum total does without saying so.

And here we see the worst example of twisting the constitution by the left. The declaration that an amendment of the constitution is ‘superfluous’ because it is a ‘summery.’

That is how you eliminate amendments and ignore them out of hand: call them meaningless. If that were true then there would not be a 10th amendment. There is and it states something quite clearly, something that the left has ignored damn near a century now – that the states are NOT mere extensions of the federal government but that they have real and constitutional powers OVER the federal government.

You would like to point to the supremacy clause but it only says what you want it to say IF you completely ignore the 10th amendment. Convenient for you, isn’t it.

Please enumerate the exact real and constitutional powers OVER the federal government that the states have.

Read the amendment. That was the entire point – THEY ARE NOT ENUMERATED.

You are looking at it backwards. The FEDERAL government has enumerated powers. The states powers exist over what the federal government is not enumerated to have. You are asking me to do something that is not possible within the constitution because it is the exact opposite of how the constitution was created.

 

[kaz]

Is this what you do kaz when you have no real argument? I know that you are better than this so I will chalk it up to posters annoying you over the 80 some pages in this thread but please, produce something better than this. I value your input here and I know you can put up a real argument.

I've clearly and repeatedly addressed the point. Equal protection means applying the same law in the same way. There are no formulas. A black man was not allowed to use the same fountain, the same bathroom or sit in the same seats on a bus as a white man, by law. That was a violation of equal protection. Gays and straights on the other hand can marry exactly the same people. A gay man and I can marry the exact same people. Equal protection is clearly and unambiguously satisfied.

That a gay man doesn't "want" the same thing is irrelevant to the law. So you don't like it, take it to the legislature. Give me an example of any other law where what you "want" determines how the law is applied to you. It is not my argument that is baseless here, it's yours. And I know you better than that.

I know you from your posts, and as someone who loves liberty, you should be far more afraid of giving judges the right to make the determination that it's not fair, gay people don't want straight marriages, so a judge can decree that from the bench, then telling gays to convince their legislators to change the law.

 

[Seawytch]

Is this what you do kaz when you have no real argument? I know that you are better than this so I will chalk it up to posters annoying you over the 80 some pages in this thread but please, produce something better than this. I value your input here and I know you can put up a real argument.

I've clearly and repeatedly addressed the point. Equal protection means applying the same law in the same way. There are no formulas. A black man was not allowed to use the same fountain, the same bathroom or sit in the same seats on a bus as a white man, by law. That was a violation of equal protection. Gays and straights on the other hand can marry exactly the same people. A gay man and I can marry the exact same people. Equal protection is clearly and unambiguously satisfied.

That a gay man doesn't "want" the same thing is irrelevant to the law. So you don't like it, take it to the legislature. Give me an example of any other law where what you "want" determines how the law is applied to you. It is not my argument that is baseless here, it's yours. And I know you better than that.

I know you from your posts, and as someone who loves liberty, you should be far more afraid of giving judges the right to make the determination that it's not fair, gay people don't want straight marriages, so a judge can decree that from the bench, then telling gays to convince their legislators to change the law.

And yet, again, equal protection is being cited in case after case. Why? Because our equal protection under the law is being violated...even if you don't "believe" it.

 

[kaz]

Is this what you do kaz when you have no real argument? I know that you are better than this so I will chalk it up to posters annoying you over the 80 some pages in this thread but please, produce something better than this. I value your input here and I know you can put up a real argument.

I've clearly and repeatedly addressed the point. Equal protection means applying the same law in the same way. There are no formulas. A black man was not allowed to use the same fountain, the same bathroom or sit in the same seats on a bus as a white man, by law. That was a violation of equal protection. Gays and straights on the other hand can marry exactly the same people. A gay man and I can marry the exact same people. Equal protection is clearly and unambiguously satisfied.

That a gay man doesn't "want" the same thing is irrelevant to the law. So you don't like it, take it to the legislature. Give me an example of any other law where what you "want" determines how the law is applied to you. It is not my argument that is baseless here, it's yours. And I know you better than that.

I know you from your posts, and as someone who loves liberty, you should be far more afraid of giving judges the right to make the determination that it's not fair, gay people don't want straight marriages, so a judge can decree that from the bench, then telling gays to convince their legislators to change the law.

And yet, again, equal protection is being cited in case after case. Why? Because our equal protection under the law is being violated...even if you don't "believe" it.

Give me an example of any other law either with a variable or where what you "want" changes the law.

 

[Seawytch]

I've clearly and repeatedly addressed the point. Equal protection means applying the same law in the same way. There are no formulas. A black man was not allowed to use the same fountain, the same bathroom or sit in the same seats on a bus as a white man, by law. That was a violation of equal protection. Gays and straights on the other hand can marry exactly the same people. A gay man and I can marry the exact same people. Equal protection is clearly and unambiguously satisfied.

That a gay man doesn't "want" the same thing is irrelevant to the law. So you don't like it, take it to the legislature. Give me an example of any other law where what you "want" determines how the law is applied to you. It is not my argument that is baseless here, it's yours. And I know you better than that.

I know you from your posts, and as someone who loves liberty, you should be far more afraid of giving judges the right to make the determination that it's not fair, gay people don't want straight marriages, so a judge can decree that from the bench, then telling gays to convince their legislators to change the law.

And yet, again, equal protection is being cited in case after case. Why? Because our equal protection under the law is being violated...even if you don't "believe" it.

Give me an example of any other law either with a variable or where what you "want" changes the law.

Loving v Virginia. Those opposed argued like you are that anti miscegenation laws did not violate equal protection because blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites. Nobody was prohibited from marrying, they just couldn't marry who they wanted to.

While due process is probably a more direct route to get to marriage equality, equal protection applies too, especially in regards to the sections of DOMA still in place. My legal marriage license still is not treated the same as yours in all 50 states.

 

[Seawytch]

That doesn't even make sense if I ignore the scientific evidence that people are not born gay.

Except there is no scientific evidence that says that. Consensus among scientists is that orientation is not a choice.

Pawlenty says Scientists are in Dispute Over Whether Gay is a Choice

There is no link in that opinion peace that even begins to back up their position. Could that be because there is no scientific evidence, or a scientific consensus, that people are born gay? Would you like to admit I am right, or do you want to throw another opinion piece at me that doesn't prove me wrong?

You stated your own opinion without providing a fucking thing to back up your claim. You're wrong and my personal opinion on it holds more water since I am gay and I'm telling you, from an eye witness standpoint, that I did not choose to be attracted to women. Scientists, by an overwhelming majority, agree with me.

 

[Redfish]

Except there is no scientific evidence that says that. Consensus among scientists is that orientation is not a choice.

Pawlenty says Scientists are in Dispute Over Whether Gay is a Choice

There is no link in that opinion peace that even begins to back up their position. Could that be because there is no scientific evidence, or a scientific consensus, that people are born gay? Would you like to admit I am right, or do you want to throw another opinion piece at me that doesn't prove me wrong?

You stated your own opinion without providing a fucking thing to back up your claim. You're wrong and my personal opinion on it holds more water since I am gay and I'm telling you, from an eye witness standpoint, that I did not choose to be attracted to women. Scientists, by an overwhelming majority, agree with me.

Yes, you are correct, most male scientists are attracted to women

 

[Seawytch]

There is no link in that opinion peace that even begins to back up their position. Could that be because there is no scientific evidence, or a scientific consensus, that people are born gay? Would you like to admit I am right, or do you want to throw another opinion piece at me that doesn't prove me wrong?

You stated your own opinion without providing a fucking thing to back up your claim. You're wrong and my personal opinion on it holds more water since I am gay and I'm telling you, from an eye witness standpoint, that I did not choose to be attracted to women. Scientists, by an overwhelming majority, agree with me.

Yes, you are correct, most male scientists are attracted to women

They also agree that sexual orientation isn't a choice. Not that it should matter in a "free" society.

 

[Redfish]

You stated your own opinion without providing a fucking thing to back up your claim. You're wrong and my personal opinion on it holds more water since I am gay and I'm telling you, from an eye witness standpoint, that I did not choose to be attracted to women. Scientists, by an overwhelming majority, agree with me.

Yes, you are correct, most male scientists are attracted to women

They also agree that sexual orientation isn't a choice. Not that it should matter in a "free" society.

Not a choice? Really? Unless you have both male and female chromosomes, it is a choice.

You made yours, and thats just fine with me. But don't ask me to support any government mandate that forces me or anyone else to condone it.

See, thats the thing, you want the government to mandate how people think about gays---------that its just a normal alternative to normal sexual activity--------but its not and never will be.

 

[The Rabbi]

And yet, again, equal protection is being cited in case after case. Why? Because our equal protection under the law is being violated...even if you don't "believe" it.

Give me an example of any other law either with a variable or where what you "want" changes the law.

Loving v Virginia. Those opposed argued like you are that anti miscegenation laws did not violate equal protection because blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites. Nobody was prohibited from marrying, they just couldn't marry who they wanted to.

While due process is probably a more direct route to get to marriage equality, equal protection applies too, especially in regards to the sections of DOMA still in place. My legal marriage license still is not treated the same as yours in all 50 states.

It was a criminal offense in VA for people of different races to marry. That is not the case with gays. No one is stopping them from marrying in whatever ceremony they want.
You keep pusing Loving like some kind of precedent. It isn't. It is like chalk and cheese.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, you are correct, most male scientists are attracted to women

They also agree that sexual orientation isn't a choice. Not that it should matter in a "free" society.

Not a choice? Really? Unless you have both male and female chromosomes, it is a choice.

You made yours, and thats just fine with me. But don't ask me to support any government mandate that forces me or anyone else to condone it.

See, thats the thing, you want the government to mandate how people think about gays---------that its just a normal alternative to normal sexual activity--------but its not and never will be.

Of course it's a choice. Leonard Bernstein was married to a woman for like 30 years and then left her to join his male lover. So was he straight for 30 years and suddenly became gay? Was he really gay for 30 years and just faking it? (They had several children). This isn't that unusual btw.

 

[Seawytch]

Yes, you are correct, most male scientists are attracted to women

They also agree that sexual orientation isn't a choice. Not that it should matter in a "free" society.

Not a choice? Really? Unless you have both male and female chromosomes, it is a choice.

You made yours, and thats just fine with me. But don't ask me to support any government mandate that forces me or anyone else to condone it.

See, thats the thing, you want the government to mandate how people think about gays---------that its just a normal alternative to normal sexual activity--------but its not and never will be.

Really, not a choice? If you believe that it is, you must believe that you yourself could make that choice. Is that what you're saying? You could choose to, not just have sex with someone of the same sex, but to want to spend your life with them, loving honoring and cherishing them? Is that what you're saying?

 

[Seawytch]

They also agree that sexual orientation isn't a choice. Not that it should matter in a "free" society.

Not a choice? Really? Unless you have both male and female chromosomes, it is a choice.

You made yours, and thats just fine with me. But don't ask me to support any government mandate that forces me or anyone else to condone it.

See, thats the thing, you want the government to mandate how people think about gays---------that its just a normal alternative to normal sexual activity--------but its not and never will be.

Of course it's a choice. Leonard Bernstein was married to a woman for like 30 years and then left her to join his male lover. So was he straight for 30 years and suddenly became gay? Was he really gay for 30 years and just faking it? (They had several children). This isn't that unusual btw.

No, it wasn't unusual for gays to marry and have children...only to leave their families when they couldn't live a lie anymore. Leonard was always gay, he just didn't accept that fact until later in life. Fortunately, that is no longer "the norm" because we don't have to anymore. We can marry the partner of OUR choice, not "societies" (especially since society is now embracing our choices in ever increasing numbers).

 

[Seawytch]

Give me an example of any other law either with a variable or where what you "want" changes the law.

Loving v Virginia. Those opposed argued like you are that anti miscegenation laws did not violate equal protection because blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites. Nobody was prohibited from marrying, they just couldn't marry who they wanted to.

While due process is probably a more direct route to get to marriage equality, equal protection applies too, especially in regards to the sections of DOMA still in place. My legal marriage license still is not treated the same as yours in all 50 states.

It was a criminal offense in VA for people of different races to marry. That is not the case with gays. No one is stopping them from marrying in whatever ceremony they want.
You keep pusing Loving like some kind of precedent. It isn't. It is like chalk and cheese.

Loving struck down ALL anti-miscegenation laws, not just VA's. That they criminalized it is moot.

Loving did set a precedent. So did Turner v Safley, Zabloski v Wisconsin, Lawrence v Texas and US v Windsor.

Read the writing on the wall Rabbi. Marriage equality is inevitable. Why tilt at windmills?

 

[NYcarbineer]

They also agree that sexual orientation isn't a choice. Not that it should matter in a "free" society.

Not a choice? Really? Unless you have both male and female chromosomes, it is a choice.

You made yours, and thats just fine with me. But don't ask me to support any government mandate that forces me or anyone else to condone it.

See, thats the thing, you want the government to mandate how people think about gays---------that its just a normal alternative to normal sexual activity--------but its not and never will be.

Of course it's a choice. Leonard Bernstein was married to a woman for like 30 years and then left her to join his male lover. So was he straight for 30 years and suddenly became gay? Was he really gay for 30 years and just faking it? (They had several children). This isn't that unusual btw.

Choice or 'born that way' are irrelevant. If you're born to Jewish parents, practice Judaism for a few years,

then convert to Catholicism, you don't lose your religious rights and freedom simply because you weren't born that way.