Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[NYcarbineer]

In this world. It's completely natural, some people are born that way. That you can't accept it is not anyone's problem but your own.

That you go out of your way to argue against it says more about your own insecurity and inner demons than anything else. The act of your arguments is more telling than your arguments themselves. You're a busy body.

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

Well the homos have a problem. Until the 1970s homosexuality was classed as a disease. It changed only because the fags took over a meeting of the AMA and threatened everyone. So it's not a disease, it's a choice. But if it's a choice, then they can choose not to do it. So why don't they? If they have no power over it, then it really is a disease and needs a cure.
One of the many conundrums of "gay" life.

If homosexuality is a choice, then heterosexuality is a choice.

 

[RKMBrown]

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

Well the homos have a problem. Until the 1970s homosexuality was classed as a disease. It changed only because the fags took over a meeting of the AMA and threatened everyone. So it's not a disease, it's a choice. But if it's a choice, then they can choose not to do it. So why don't they? If they have no power over it, then it really is a disease and needs a cure.
One of the many conundrums of "gay" life.

If homosexuality is a choice, then heterosexuality is a choice.

If racisim is a choice, then homophobia is a choice.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Same as above though. While life might not be fair LAW should always be applied equally. It is not a matter of fair. It is a matter of the equal application of law.

We try to give people a 'fair trial'. That is very commonly used expression. Are you and kaz now trying to argue that we shouldn't?

That depends on what you mean by fair trial. According to the Supreme Court a fair trial means that everyone that broke the rules did so without really making a difference. They also say it doesn't matter if a person is actually guilty once they get a fair trial. In other words, it doesn't matter if the prosecutor had proof the guy was innocent because he got a confession from someone else as long as he followed the rules and hid the confession in thousands of pages of documents he gave the defense the day before the trial.

I don't like that definition of fair.

lol, so now we're seeing a whole new faction on USMB...

...the anti-fairness faction.

 

[Seawytch]

Well the homos have a problem. Until the 1970s homosexuality was classed as a disease. It changed only because the fags took over a meeting of the AMA and threatened everyone. So it's not a disease, it's a choice. But if it's a choice, then they can choose not to do it. So why don't they? If they have no power over it, then it really is a disease and needs a cure.
One of the many conundrums of "gay" life.

If homosexuality is a choice, then heterosexuality is a choice.

If racisim is a choice, then homophobia is a choice.

Now those we KNOW are choices...very bad ones.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

The Catholics don't let you become a priest if you were born a woman. Thus half of people converting to do loose some religious rights if they convert to Catholicism. Just sayin.

 

[RKMBrown]

If homosexuality is a choice, then heterosexuality is a choice.

If racisim is a choice, then homophobia is a choice.

Now those we KNOW are choices...very bad ones.

If homosexuality is a genetic chance then heterosexuality is a genetic chance.

 

[bodecea]

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.

There are many closeted gays (even today) who try very hard to live a straight life...marriage, kids, house in the burbs, etc. They eventually cannot live the lie anymore...and that usually comes out (so to speak) in their 50s after a long struggle.

I expect we will even be seeing that play out here on these message boards....

 

[NYcarbineer]

She has a right to privacy between her and her doctor. She does not have the right to kill her unborn child. Except the SC created one from the "shandows and penumbras of the Constitution."

The unborn have no personhood rights in the Constitution. Inventing rights for fetuses is really a good example of legislating from the bench.

So is rejecting them. The Constitution does not address abortion or when life begins. Therefore, the Federal government has NO authority to say ANYTHING about abortion.

You're wrongly assuming that the Constitution was intended to be explicit and comprehensive and literal,

with no room for such things as implied powers, unenumerated rights, etc.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The Catholics don't let you become a priest if you were born a woman. Thus half of people converting to do loose some religious rights if they convert to Catholicism. Just sayin.

Which is fascinating, for anyone without access to common knowledge,

but also irrelevant to my point.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well the homos have a problem. Until the 1970s homosexuality was classed as a disease. It changed only because the fags took over a meeting of the AMA and threatened everyone. So it's not a disease, it's a choice. But if it's a choice, then they can choose not to do it. So why don't they? If they have no power over it, then it really is a disease and needs a cure.
One of the many conundrums of "gay" life.

If homosexuality is a choice, then heterosexuality is a choice.

If racisim is a choice, then homophobia is a choice.

Racism may be instinctive, or very close to it. They've done experiments with very young babies where they've shown the babies pictures of people who were similar looking to their parents,

and the babies reacted positively. When they showed them pictures of people who looked very different, the babies often cried or reacted negatively.

 

[The Rabbi]

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).

So he was always gay. Even though he was married and to my knowledge never engaged in gay sex. What a fantasy you have going there.
It is still the case that some married men have gay sex on the side. The whole notion that being gay is in the genes is absurd.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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).

So he was always gay. Even though he was married and to my knowledge never engaged in gay sex. What a fantasy you have going there.
It is still the case that some married men have gay sex on the side. The whole notion that being gay is in the genes is absurd.

Maybe it's genetic sometimes, and a choice other times.

More importantly, it's irrelevant.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

A gay woman CANNOT marry the same people that you can. That is the point. You are still focusing on just one sex – claiming that the law is not applied differently between you and the gay man. Of course it is not, you are both a part of the same group. Take someone NOT in your group (a woman) and suddenly you are NOT given the same rights. You are not allowed to enter into the same voluntary contract that the other person is allowed. THAT is where my problem lies. How is that baseless? The law is not applied to men and women equally.

As far as the judge goes, I am equally afraid of the government holding onto the idea that it is capable of writing laws that apply to one segment of society but not the other. I am FAR MORE afraid of government thinking that they have a right to determine the morality or legitimacy of an action/association. That is all marriage law is about and I do NOT cede that power to the government. I choose who I associate with and who I enter into contract with.

I do not want the government picking the relationships that it is going to ‘recognize.’ If they are going to have marriage law then it needs to be allowed for anyone to marry anyone else who can legally consent. Otherwise, the government needs to get the hell out of the business entirely. It is the advocates against gay marriage that are essentially allowing government to selectively decide what relationships are acceptable and what ones are not. It allows the government to select who will be allowed to take advantage of one set of privileges and who will not. That really is the bottom line. Whatever you feel about the court really is irrelevant, some things the government should simply not be doing and enforcing the legitimacy or morality of your relationships and (more importantly) the contracts that you are allowed to legally enter into is simply wrong on to many levels for me to accept it.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

The Catholics don't let you become a priest if you were born a woman. Thus half of people converting to do loose some religious rights if they convert to Catholicism. Just sayin.

Which is fascinating, for anyone without access to common knowledge,

but also irrelevant to my point.

So you won't defend women's (genetically female by birth) right to an exclusive club (the priesthood).

But you expect folks to defend gays (genetically homosexual by birth) right to an exclusive club (marriage).

 

[RKMBrown]

If homosexuality is a choice, then heterosexuality is a choice.

If racisim is a choice, then homophobia is a choice.

Racism may be instinctive, or very close to it. They've done experiments with very young babies where they've shown the babies pictures of people who were similar looking to their parents,

and the babies reacted positively. When they showed them pictures of people who looked very different, the babies often cried or reacted negatively.

I think the phrases you are looking for is Familial affection and Tribalism instincts. We have a primal genetic desire to want to huddle in groups for self defense.

 

[RKMBrown]

As far as the judge goes, I am equally afraid of the government holding onto the idea that it is capable of writing laws that apply to one segment of society but not the other. I am FAR MORE afraid of government thinking that they have a right to determine the morality or legitimacy of an action/association.

Like progressive taxes? Like fixing SS by charging grand kids double for SS than what their grand parents paid? Like one set of laws for the people and another for Congress?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Catholics don't let you become a priest if you were born a woman. Thus half of people converting to do loose some religious rights if they convert to Catholicism. Just sayin.

Which is fascinating, for anyone without access to common knowledge,

but also irrelevant to my point.

So you won't defend women's (genetically female by birth) right to an exclusive club (the priesthood).

But you expect folks to defend gays (genetically homosexual by birth) right to an exclusive club (marriage).

The priesthood is governed by church rules not government rules.

 

[RKMBrown]

Which is fascinating, for anyone without access to common knowledge,

but also irrelevant to my point.

So you won't defend women's (genetically female by birth) right to an exclusive club (the priesthood).

But you expect folks to defend gays (genetically homosexual by birth) right to an exclusive club (marriage).

The priesthood is governed by church rules not government rules.

I'm gonna guess you've never been married. Marriages are not governed by government rules. FYI priests get a discount on their taxes. So it is the same issue. If government won't allow you to become a catholic priest you are being denied your right to the tax break. Same issue.

You want a marriage license. Females want a priest license.

You are denied based on sexual orientation. Females are denied based on gender. Males are denied priesthood based on sexual orientation as well (they have to be entirely a-sexual and marry the church).

Both marriage and ordainment are religious institutions. Both marriage and ordainment are given special tax dispensation and laws by our government.

 

[kaz]

I do not want the government picking the relationships that it is going to ‘recognize.’

Of course you do. By supporting marriage being a government function, that is exactly what you are doing. Adding "gay marriage" does not change that government is still making that decision. You only have a different standard, you have not in any way eliminated that government is still deciding. It's two people, one person can only be in one marriage relationship, it's not open to individual citizens. The privileges that go with marriage. All those things you are ceding to government to decide. Don't believe your view is better than the man/woman crowd, you're the same other than you just have one different standard.

Come out of the darkness and into the light. If government were out of the marriage business and we are all equal citizens to the State then marriage will be out of the hands of government.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

A gay woman CANNOT marry the same people that you can. That is the point. You are still focusing on just one sex – claiming that the law is not applied differently between you and the gay man. Of course it is not, you are both a part of the same group. Take someone NOT in your group (a woman) and suddenly you are NOT given the same rights. You are not allowed to enter into the same voluntary contract that the other person is allowed. THAT is where my problem lies. How is that baseless? The law is not applied to men and women equally.

.

The same applies to married men. They are not allowed to marry anyone else,man or woman. So I guess married people dont have the same rights as single people.