Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[FA_Q2]

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.

Read my posts kaz, I prefer the government entirely out of marriage and, in its place, there should be a contract that would serve a similar purpose but would not be weighted down with the ‘benefits’ that you gain from the government or the conflict surrounding who you get into that contract with. I have stated as much earlier. However, this thread was not about that but rather concerning existing law and why it is wrong to include one relationship but not the other.

I do not have a different standard. You keep going back to fitting those that oppose your view as somehow inconsistent, arbitrary or wrong. That is what we call an ad homonym, attack the argument rather than stating the one making it is being arbitrary or no different than the opposite position.

 

[FA_Q2]

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?

Yes, like all of that and MUCH more.

 

[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?

Yes, like all of that and MUCH more.

Cats out of the bag. If you don't want to live under a tyrannical federal government you're gonna have to be willing to overthrow it by force.

 

[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.

Read my posts kaz, I prefer the government entirely out of marriage and, in its place, there should be a contract that would serve a similar purpose but would not be weighted down with the ‘benefits’ that you gain from the government or the conflict surrounding who you get into that contract with. I have stated as much earlier.

Excellent.

However, this thread was not about that but rather concerning existing law and why it is wrong to include one relationship but not the other.

Not clear that's so, but my point is not about that. It's how to achieve that. I say do it Constitutionally through the legislature, not Unconstitutionally through the courts. Equal protection is unambiguous and gays have it. The Constitutional way to legislate is through the legislature.

I do not have a different standard. You keep going back to fitting those that oppose your view as somehow inconsistent, arbitrary or wrong.

Actually, not people who "have a different standard," people who word parse equal protection as a short cut rather than doing the work themselves. Equal protection is not a variable and it doesn't involve what someone wants, people who say that are wrong.

As for gay marriage, you won't get me at a protest, but I would vote against it for two reasons. First, I don't see any need for it other then as a political statement, and second, if you oppose government marriage, I don't see how you move towards that by expanding the definition of marriage to include more people.

That is what we call an ad homonym, attack the argument rather than stating the one making it is being arbitrary or no different than the opposite position.

By definition, to say "someone who believes ... is a ..." is not ad hominem. To say "FA_W2 believes ... so he is a ..." is ad hominem. Generally only liberals believe that an attack on liberalism is ad hominem. Though they turn around and believe their actually personal attacks on others are not personal. Liberalism is all about contradictions, hypocrisy and double standards. I do not mean on that part I think you're a liberal, I know you're not.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Read my posts kaz, I prefer the government entirely out of marriage and, in its place, there should be a contract that would serve a similar purpose but would not be weighted down with the ‘benefits’ that you gain from the government or the conflict surrounding who you get into that contract with. I have stated as much earlier.

Excellent.


Not clear that's so, but my point is not about that. It's how to achieve that. I say do it Constitutionally through the legislature, not Unconstitutionally through the courts. Equal protection is unambiguous and gays have it. The Constitutional way to legislate is through the legislature.

I do not have a different standard. You keep going back to fitting those that oppose your view as somehow inconsistent, arbitrary or wrong.

Actually, not people who "have a different standard," people who word parse equal protection as a short cut rather than doing the work themselves. Equal protection is not a variable and it doesn't involve what someone wants, people who say that are wrong.

As for gay marriage, you won't get me at a protest, but I would vote against it for two reasons. First, I don't see any need for it other then as a political statement, and second, if you oppose government marriage, I don't see how you move towards that by expanding the definition of marriage to include more people.

That is what we call an ad homonym, attack the argument rather than stating the one making it is being arbitrary or no different than the opposite position.

By definition, to say "someone who believes ... is a ..." is not ad hominem. To say "FA_W2 believes ... so he is a ..." is ad hominem. Generally only liberals believe that an attack on liberalism is ad hominem. Though they turn around and believe their actually personal attacks on others are not personal. Liberalism is all about contradictions, hypocrisy and double standards. I do not mean on that part I think you're a liberal, I know you're not.

Ironic!

 

[FA_Q2]

However, this thread was not about that but rather concerning existing law and why it is wrong to include one relationship but not the other.

Not clear that's so, but my point is not about that. It's how to achieve that. I say do it Constitutionally through the legislature, not Unconstitutionally through the courts. Equal protection is unambiguous and gays have it. The Constitutional way to legislate is through the legislature.

I did not gather that from your posts and as you state later that you would not even vote for it leads me to think that you are in general opposed to the idea.

From here I don’t think that there is much ground to be gained because we disagree fundamentally as to whether or not there really is an equal access to law issue here.

Like I said, I am opposed to the idea that we should apply a law to one sect (women) and then not to another (men) or vice versa. We also disagree with the purpose of the courts though as well. I happen to be a proponent of judicial review in that I don’t think that a president and congress will uphold the constitution if the only thing that enforces it is their good will.

I do not have a different standard. You keep going back to fitting those that oppose your view as somehow inconsistent, arbitrary or wrong.

Actually, not people who "have a different standard," people who word parse equal protection as a short cut rather than doing the work themselves. Equal protection is not a variable and it doesn't involve what someone wants, people who say that are wrong.

As I said, this has nothing to do with what one wants. I have been very clear on that, particularly when you went off to deer hunting tangents. What you want is irrelevant. How the law only allows contracts between individuals that it has deemed deserving is what is wrong. The government has no right giving a straight couple access to a law but not a gay couple as there is no state interest and no harmed person in the transaction.

As for gay marriage, you won't get me at a protest, but I would vote against it for two reasons. First, I don't see any need for it other then as a political statement, and second, if you oppose government marriage, I don't see how you move towards that by expanding the definition of marriage to include more people.

1. Whether it is a political statement or not is irrelevant. What s wrong is wrong and what is right is right no matter if someone is using it as a political statement or not. That is NOT a valid reson to oppose the measure.
2. This has more merit but I don’t see marriages going anywhere so, in the meantime, until we get to a better place we need to apply the law equally, even bad law.

That is what we call an ad homonym, attack the argument rather than stating the one making it is being arbitrary or no different than the opposite position.

By definition, to say "someone who believes ... is a ..." is not ad hominem. To say "FA_W2 believes ... so he is a ..." is ad hominem. Generally only liberals believe that an attack on liberalism is ad hominem. Though they turn around and believe their actually personal attacks on others are not personal. Liberalism is all about contradictions, hypocrisy and double standards. I do not mean on that part I think you're a liberal, I know you're not.

Fine. It just seemed rather roundabout in taking out an argument without points. Either way, it does not matter as we are getting to the heart of the issue now.

 

[kaz]

Read my posts kaz, I prefer the government entirely out of marriage and, in its place, there should be a contract that would serve a similar purpose but would not be weighted down with the ‘benefits’ that you gain from the government or the conflict surrounding who you get into that contract with. I have stated as much earlier.

Excellent.


Not clear that's so, but my point is not about that. It's how to achieve that. I say do it Constitutionally through the legislature, not Unconstitutionally through the courts. Equal protection is unambiguous and gays have it. The Constitutional way to legislate is through the legislature.


Actually, not people who "have a different standard," people who word parse equal protection as a short cut rather than doing the work themselves. Equal protection is not a variable and it doesn't involve what someone wants, people who say that are wrong.

As for gay marriage, you won't get me at a protest, but I would vote against it for two reasons. First, I don't see any need for it other then as a political statement, and second, if you oppose government marriage, I don't see how you move towards that by expanding the definition of marriage to include more people.

That is what we call an ad homonym, attack the argument rather than stating the one making it is being arbitrary or no different than the opposite position.

By definition, to say "someone who believes ... is a ..." is not ad hominem. To say "FA_W2 believes ... so he is a ..." is ad hominem. Generally only liberals believe that an attack on liberalism is ad hominem. Though they turn around and believe their actually personal attacks on others are not personal. Liberalism is all about contradictions, hypocrisy and double standards. I do not mean on that part I think you're a liberal, I know you're not.

Ironic!

because...

 

[kaz]

I did not gather that from your posts and as you state later that you would not even vote for it leads me to think that you are in general opposed to the idea.

I would also vote against heterosexual marriage, so what is the difference exactly?

Seawytch once asked me that if we already had gay marriage if I would vote against adding heterosexual marriage, I said in a heartbeat, yes, I would vote against it.

As I said, if you believe government should not be in the marriage business, it's illogical to support more people getting a government marriage.

And as to your points on gay marriage, assuming we have government marriage, if you support:

1) Polygamy

2) Multiple simultaneous 2 person marriages

3) Individuals being married to no one

Then I will at least concede intellectual integrity in your argument. If you don't, then on this one you're no more logical then the man/woman crowd, you just have a different standard.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

I'm going to do you the courtesy of saying that I have no idea what your point is.

 

[Redfish]

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.

and off topic. you, like most gays, refuse to admit what your real agenda is. You don't want just equality----------you want government mandated thought control whereby no one is allowed to view homosexuality as an abnormal condition.

Sorry, but it won't work.

 

[FA_Q2]

I did not gather that from your posts and as you state later that you would not even vote for it leads me to think that you are in general opposed to the idea.

I would also vote against heterosexual marriage, so what is the difference exactly?

Seawytch once asked me that if we already had gay marriage if I would vote against adding heterosexual marriage, I said in a heartbeat, yes, I would vote against it.

As I said, if you believe government should not be in the marriage business, it's illogical to support more people getting a government marriage.

Point taken.

And as to your points on gay marriage, assuming we have government marriage, if you support:

1) Polygamy

2) Multiple simultaneous 2 person marriages

If the appropriate laws were changed to make this manageable, I have no problem with that at all. As I said before, who you enter into contract with is your business. Note that I have already made a distinction between this and gay marriage in so far as the law must be changed to accommodate this.

On that note, by appropriate laws, I am referring to the laws that would not be workable if more than 2 parties were involved.

3) Individuals being married to no one

Nope, cant support that but that is likely because I have no idea what you are trying to state here
What the heck is a marriage to no one??? Last I checked, you cannot enter into a legal contract with yourself.

Then I will at least concede intellectual integrity in your argument. If you don't, then on this one you're no more logical then the man/woman crowd, you just have a different standard.

Already addressed as to why the 2 person/multiple people argument is different.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I never said that there is evidence that sexual preference is a choice, what I said is that there is proof that no one is born gay. There are quite a few twin studies out there that show that even self selecting monozygotic twins do not always end up with the same sexual preferences as adults. If even a study that deliberately set out to prove that people are born gay failed there is absolutely no need to argue about it, yet some people prefer to ignore the evidence and cling to their beliefs.

For the record, I believe that sexual preference, like religion, is a choice. The again, I believe in free will. I will admit that I can't prove my belief is correct, it is entirely possible we all get programmed at some point and that everything we do is a direct result of a user makes for us because we actually live in a matrix, but I want proof of that before I will stop believing in free will.

Feel free to post all the opinion pieces you want, there is no evidence that does not rely on an individual's belief that they were born that way. Until you come up with some type of scientific study that is the result of rigorous testing and has repeatable results you really do not have proof, all you have is the wild guesses of people with an agenda.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 vlaw is being violated...even if you don't "believe" it.

If of really want to know why equal protection is being cited in those cases I suggest you read the opinions in the Dome case, both the consenting and the dissent. You will end up a bit smarter, and everyone else will be able to find out how honest you are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

That response would be more substantive if you and I hadn't already gone around on the issue before. Did you ever find anything to disprove the conclusion that is inevitable if you factor in the fact that twin studies have conclusively proven that monozygotic twins can have different sexual preferences?

In other words, the ball is in your court.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You are half right, it doesn't matter if sexual preference is a choice or not.

Funny how you cannot even produce a survey to back up your claim that most scientist believe something that is patently false.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

I did make that choice, so did you. You also chose to be a Democrat, even if you can't tell me when you made that choice. The mere fact that you don't remember your choices does not prove you didn't make them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

You keep missing the point. Loving struck down a law that made it illegal for a married couple to live in he same house. Taylor struck down a law that made it illegal
for consenting adults to have sex. All the laws you hate do is define what the of relationship will receive official government approval.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

I'm going to do you the courtesy of saying that I have no idea what your point is.

My point is that you appear to have tunnel vision. You appear to be overwhelmingly focused on your own issue and either unwilling or incapable of recognizing the other groups that are in similar circumstances. IOW you appear to be accusing anti-gay folks of the same thing you are guilty of, that of being anti for the rights of women to enter the priesthood, and other similar groups that are being excluded. We should be fighting not just for gays to have their marriages recognized but also for singles and plural marriage advocates to not be singled out by the majority.

Rather than embracing tyranny over these groups by trying to be recognized as one of the "exclusive" groups we should be tearing down these government misgivings enacted by the majority for their self benefit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Bullshit.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

You keep missing the point. Loving struck down a law that made it illegal for a married couple to live in he same house. Taylor struck down a law that made it illegal
for consenting adults to have sex. All the laws you hate do is define what the of relationship will receive official government approval.

To the homo lobby they are Martin Luther King and the Freedom Riders roaming around sticking it in the face of bigots and racists for justice.

The truth of the matter is they are whiny little sniveling snots demanding financial reward from the rest of us to validate their perverted lifestyle.