Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[Redfish]

The way laws are written right now...no it doesn't. But if you want to actively work to make civil unions completely equal marriage, that would be fine.....including changing all the terminology in laws and statutes thru-out the country.

thats your job, not mine. I am happy with the laws as they are.

But I am sure that Mohammed and his wives sabha, matilda, maria, kenisha, louise, lupe, zelda and their 22 children will help you with that cause.

so will tom, jim, jane, and susan with their 4 way marriage.

But you yourself said you think that civil unions should be equal....but I guess you really don't think that way. Ok.......not that I'm surprised by that.

I do think that gay two person civil unions should be equal, I have said that many times.

This thread is about the natural end game if gay marriage is sanctioned by the federal govt. once that is done, there is absolutely no way that the SCOTUS could disallow polygamy and bigamy because that would be discrimination.

 

[FA_Q2]

Edit/Note: it is worth mentioning that under YOUR definition they ARE equal under the law but under mine they are not

Which does make it ironic that at some point you accused me of just not wanting "gay" marriage. That you even admit that singles are not receiving equal protection, but you're OK with that shows the reverse is true, you want gay marriage. And that you're not consistent in arguing equal protection shows that really wasn't your issue. Which means, what I said in the first place is right, you're after "fair" not equal. Which goes back to my argument, this belongs in the legislature, not the courts. "Fair" is not a power of the Constitution for the judicial system.

No it does not. You are putting words in my posts that simply are not there. I have already stated what I support. Stick with my ACTUAL positions, not the ones that you are inventing for me.

 

[FA_Q2]

being born gay is like being born with 9 fingers. Its an aberation of the human condition. I am sorry for you and those like you, because most of you probably did not choose your orientation.

But, 9 fingers is not normal and neither is homosexuality. Acceptance and equality are what everyone is entitled to. Nothing more.

Actually, you don't have to accept anything, you simply have to tolerate. The equality is all we're demanding.

I tolerate and accept all kinds of human conditions. I have said many times that you and your partner should have equal rights with opposite sex couples. But, what you have is NOT A MARRIAGE. Thats the central issue. you want the government to force the rest of us to call your same sex coupling a marriage. You aren't about equality, thats not your issue. You want coerced sanctioning that your coupling is as normal as an opposite sex marriage----BUT ITS NOT.

The government is not forcing you to call it anything. You could, should you choose to, call their relationship a chair.

I don’t see how that has any real barring on the conversation here. The only thing that the government is ‘forcing’ is that gay couples are going to get the same access to contractual agreements that a straight couple does.

You could even ignore its existence entirely. Case in point, even with the law preventing such unions many of the gay couples claim they are in a marriage anyway. There is nothing preventing them from being ‘married’ in their eyes. What the government was preventing was the free access to contractual law surrounding the civil side of marriages.

 

[Seawytch]

No, I am demanding equal access to civil marriage laws. If you got married for validation and free stuff, I'm sorry for you. Take away the free stuff, go ahead (and good luck) but we will still want equal access to civil marriage laws.

a civil union does that--------admit it, equality is not your goal.

The way laws are written right now...no it doesn't. But if you want to actively work to make civil unions completely equal marriage, that would be fine.....including changing all the terminology in laws and statutes thru-out the country.

Not just country, world. What of international travel, immigration, etc. They got a lot of changin' to do.

 

[Seawytch]

as long as you stay in caliprunia where the court overturned the will of the people, fine, I could not care less. Your state is broke and moving toward becoming the state of Detroit---enjoy.

How do you feel about the court overturning the will of the people in Washington D.C. where they struck down the very strict gun control laws?

Not a valid analogy, tell me again which constitutional amendment addresses gay marriage.

Where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to interstate travel, birth control, procreation, etc? And yet, restrictions on such would be challenged on Constitutional grounds would it not?

Not all rights are strictly enumerated in the Constitution. Surely you're aware of that.

 

[Redfish]

Actually, you don't have to accept anything, you simply have to tolerate. The equality is all we're demanding.

I tolerate and accept all kinds of human conditions. I have said many times that you and your partner should have equal rights with opposite sex couples. But, what you have is NOT A MARRIAGE. Thats the central issue. you want the government to force the rest of us to call your same sex coupling a marriage. You aren't about equality, thats not your issue. You want coerced sanctioning that your coupling is as normal as an opposite sex marriage----BUT ITS NOT.

The government is not forcing you to call it anything. You could, should you choose to, call their relationship a chair.

I don’t see how that has any real barring on the conversation here. The only thing that the government is ‘forcing’ is that gay couples are going to get the same access to contractual agreements that a straight couple does.

and thats just fine. but thats not the real agenda of the gay left. they want the govt to force the rest of us to agree that gay marriage is a normal and totally acceptable alternative lifestyle that can be chosen by kids as they reach puberty.

homosexuality is NOT a normal human condition. whether it is genetic of environmental is subject to debate, but its not normal and equal to heterosexuality. Therefore, a gay union should never be called a marriage. To do so, opens the legal door to all forms of couplings and groupings.

 

[kaz]

Actually, you don't have to accept anything, you simply have to tolerate. The equality is all we're demanding.

You're after what all liberals are after. The validation of the collective and free stuff.

No, I am demanding equal access to civil marriage laws. If you got married for validation and free stuff, I'm sorry for you. Take away the free stuff, go ahead (and good luck) but we will still want equal access to civil marriage laws.

You demand the things like steep progressive and death taxes, and then you whine about not being exempt from them while you want to screw single people with them. If our government wasn't so discriminatory, in things you support, then it would be irrelevant.

My sympathy for you not getting any of those things is zero. It's your own trap.

 

[kaz]

Edit/Note: it is worth mentioning that under YOUR definition they ARE equal under the law but under mine they are not

Which does make it ironic that at some point you accused me of just not wanting "gay" marriage. That you even admit that singles are not receiving equal protection, but you're OK with that shows the reverse is true, you want gay marriage. And that you're not consistent in arguing equal protection shows that really wasn't your issue. Which means, what I said in the first place is right, you're after "fair" not equal. Which goes back to my argument, this belongs in the legislature, not the courts. "Fair" is not a power of the Constitution for the judicial system.

No it does not. You are putting words in my posts that simply are not there. I have already stated what I support. Stick with my ACTUAL positions, not the ones that you are inventing for me.

I'm not inventing anything, if I misunderstood something you said clarify where that was so.

And as I pointed out to seawytch, the left demand death taxes and steep progressive taxes and endless government meddling in our lives, why should they be let off their own hook? They want those things, just not for themselves.

If we eliminated all ways that marriages are discriminatory, then I'd be fine with opening it up to anyone who wants it. It should, to the government, just be a piece of paper. It should not be an excuse to discriminate between citizens.

 

[kaz]

No, I am demanding equal access to civil marriage laws. If you got married for validation and free stuff, I'm sorry for you. Take away the free stuff, go ahead (and good luck) but we will still want equal access to civil marriage laws.

a civil union does that--------admit it, equality is not your goal.

The way laws are written right now...no it doesn't. But if you want to actively work to make civil unions completely equal marriage, that would be fine.....including changing all the terminology in laws and statutes thru-out the country.

the angry gay left would never go for that. validation of their relationship by the collective is a paramount goal. that and free stuff. but they don't want just one of those.

 

[FA_Q2]

Which does make it ironic that at some point you accused me of just not wanting "gay" marriage. That you even admit that singles are not receiving equal protection, but you're OK with that shows the reverse is true, you want gay marriage. And that you're not consistent in arguing equal protection shows that really wasn't your issue. Which means, what I said in the first place is right, you're after "fair" not equal. Which goes back to my argument, this belongs in the legislature, not the courts. "Fair" is not a power of the Constitution for the judicial system.

No it does not. You are putting words in my posts that simply are not there. I have already stated what I support. Stick with my ACTUAL positions, not the ones that you are inventing for me.

I'm not inventing anything, if I misunderstood something you said clarify where that was so.

And as I pointed out to seawytch, the left demand death taxes and steep progressive taxes and endless government meddling in our lives, why should they be let off their own hook? They want those things, just not for themselves.

If we eliminated all ways that marriages are discriminatory, then I'd be fine with opening it up to anyone who wants it. It should, to the government, just be a piece of paper. It should not be an excuse to discriminate between citizens.

My position has always been that there should be equal access to the law and the best way of doing that would be to entirely eliminate the governmental advantages given as far as marriage goes (essentially getting the government out of it entirely). In that, I will support the movement in that direction which atm is gay marriage. It opens marriage benefits up to MORE people that were not getting those benefits that the heterosexual people are getting. You seem to oppose that because you said that expanding people that fall under that governmental definition does not work to getting the government out of it.

I would slightly disagree. The more we expand that ‘benefit’ the less it is going to mean. At some point, I would prefer that everyone has it which is essentially the same thing as no one having it. The government just might realize how asinine it is getting involved in relationships at that point.

I know, unlikely BUT I can dream right??? Until that point though I will support anything that works toward a more just application of the law no matter what form that takes and if it is just a small chunk at a time as in gay marriage, then I will take it. Your position seems to be more naive to me because you are demanding the whole cake at one time – going from man/woman marriages to completely removing the government from marriage. That is not only unlikely but disregards any movement to get there. I am willing to take this in steps until we get everyone.

Anyway, you are mischaracterizing my position again when you revert back to ‘fair’ (a term I have not used) and saying that I am not actually supporting equal application of the law when that is outright false. Just because this is not a complete step (something that has not even remotely in the realm of possibility at this juncture) does not mean I do not support equal application of the law.

 

[Gadawg73]

Don't you just love the partisan hack ideologues?
When I supported the jury verdict in the Zimmerman case I am called a racist.
When I support the rights of gays to get married dismissing the "it is a choice" crowd I get called a dick sucker.

 

[Gadawg73]

Go to the Fair Tax and I am sure all the folks opposing gay marriage here will then support it.
Sure, right.

 

[Gadawg73]

Ninety pages of this shit ending with Seabytch's life story of her perverse attractions to tuna is too much.

Gosh, slipping a bitch in there is so original. Nobody ever thought of doing that before.

When did you choose which gender you are attracted to? Did you flip a coin?

being born gay is like being born with 9 fingers. Its an aberation of the human condition. I am sorry for you and those like you, because most of you probably did not choose your orientation.

But, 9 fingers is not normal and neither is homosexuality. Acceptance and equality are what everyone is entitled to. Nothing more.

Homosexual sex is normal to homosexuals and thus by definition is not immoral.
God created them as homosexuals is my belief.
And common sense, which is obvious not so common as evidenced here these days, is did you have a point in your life when you thought "Gee, I need to decide if I am going to like boys or girls".
For everyone here that opposes gay marriage the answer is no.
Why would anyone then believe that homosexuals made a choice when they answered they didn't?

 

[FA_Q2]

Gosh, slipping a bitch in there is so original. Nobody ever thought of doing that before.

When did you choose which gender you are attracted to? Did you flip a coin?

being born gay is like being born with 9 fingers. Its an aberation of the human condition. I am sorry for you and those like you, because most of you probably did not choose your orientation.

But, 9 fingers is not normal and neither is homosexuality. Acceptance and equality are what everyone is entitled to. Nothing more.

Homosexual sex is normal to homosexuals and thus by definition is not immoral.
God created them as homosexuals is my belief.
And common sense, which is obvious not so common as evidenced here these days, is did you have a point in your life when you thought "Gee, I need to decide if I am going to like boys or girls".
For everyone here that opposes gay marriage the answer is no.
Why would anyone then believe that homosexuals made a choice when they answered they didn't?

Your response to that point is confusing as he never stated that it was immoral. He stated, quite correctly, that it is an aberration, essentially an abnormality. That is true. It is not much different than being born with 11 or 9 fingers except this has a far greater impact on your life. There is nothing ‘wrong’ with being gay and people certainly should not be penalized for such a condition but there really are only 2 options here: either it is not a choice and therefore abnormal by the very definition or it is a choice.

 

[Gadawg73]

being born gay is like being born with 9 fingers. Its an aberation of the human condition. I am sorry for you and those like you, because most of you probably did not choose your orientation.

But, 9 fingers is not normal and neither is homosexuality. Acceptance and equality are what everyone is entitled to. Nothing more.

Homosexual sex is normal to homosexuals and thus by definition is not immoral.
God created them as homosexuals is my belief.
And common sense, which is obvious not so common as evidenced here these days, is did you have a point in your life when you thought "Gee, I need to decide if I am going to like boys or girls".
For everyone here that opposes gay marriage the answer is no.
Why would anyone then believe that homosexuals made a choice when they answered they didn't?

Your response to that point is confusing as he never stated that it was immoral. He stated, quite correctly, that it is an aberration, essentially an abnormality. That is true. It is not much different than being born with 11 or 9 fingers except this has a far greater impact on your life. There is nothing ‘wrong’ with being gay and people certainly should not be penalized for such a condition but there really are only 2 options here: either it is not a choice and therefore abnormal by the very definition or it is a choice.

I agree and I was following up on what he said, not disagreeing.

 

[Seawytch]

You're after what all liberals are after. The validation of the collective and free stuff.

No, I am demanding equal access to civil marriage laws. If you got married for validation and free stuff, I'm sorry for you. Take away the free stuff, go ahead (and good luck) but we will still want equal access to civil marriage laws.

You demand the things like steep progressive and death taxes, and then you whine about not being exempt from them while you want to screw single people with them. If our government wasn't so discriminatory, in things you support, then it would be irrelevant.

My sympathy for you not getting any of those things is zero. It's your own trap.

Nope, just treat my legal marriage exactly like your legal marriage is treated. Not a difficult concept. You should be able to grasp it.

 

[kaz]

No, I am demanding equal access to civil marriage laws. If you got married for validation and free stuff, I'm sorry for you. Take away the free stuff, go ahead (and good luck) but we will still want equal access to civil marriage laws.

You demand the things like steep progressive and death taxes, and then you whine about not being exempt from them while you want to screw single people with them. If our government wasn't so discriminatory, in things you support, then it would be irrelevant.

My sympathy for you not getting any of those things is zero. It's your own trap.

Nope, just treat my legal marriage exactly like your legal marriage is treated. Not a difficult concept. You should be able to grasp it.

Not the same.

You want progressive taxes, I don't. If taxes were flat, there would be no tax break for marriage. You want the death tax, I don't. If there were no death tax for anyone, there would be no death tax break for marriage.

I want a break from YOUR taxes. YOU want a break from YOUR taxes. In no way is that the same. What you are doing and I'm not there is a word for. H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y.

Pay your taxes, or remove them for everyone. Don't just exempt yourself. Hypocrite.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I tolerate and accept all kinds of human conditions. I have said many times that you and your partner should have equal rights with opposite sex couples. But, what you have is NOT A MARRIAGE. Thats the central issue. you want the government to force the rest of us to call your same sex coupling a marriage. You aren't about equality, thats not your issue. You want coerced sanctioning that your coupling is as normal as an opposite sex marriage----BUT ITS NOT.

The government is not forcing you to call it anything. You could, should you choose to, call their relationship a chair.

I don’t see how that has any real barring on the conversation here. The only thing that the government is ‘forcing’ is that gay couples are going to get the same access to contractual agreements that a straight couple does.

and thats just fine. but thats not the real agenda of the gay left. they want the govt to force the rest of us to agree that gay marriage is a normal and totally acceptable alternative lifestyle that can be chosen by kids as they reach puberty.

homosexuality is NOT a normal human condition. whether it is genetic of environmental is subject to debate, but its not normal and equal to heterosexuality. Therefore, a gay union should never be called a marriage. To do so, opens the legal door to all forms of couplings and groupings.

What makes homosexuality abnormal? Percentages? Like people with blue eyes, or people who are lefthanded? Or people who choose to be celibate? Or people who get surgeries to prevent them from fathering children or conceiving?

What is the abnormality of choosing a non-reproductive sexual orientation, if in fact it's a choice?

How many children does a human have to have before he or she becomes 'normal'?

 

[Redfish]

The government is not forcing you to call it anything. You could, should you choose to, call their relationship a chair.

I don’t see how that has any real barring on the conversation here. The only thing that the government is ‘forcing’ is that gay couples are going to get the same access to contractual agreements that a straight couple does.

and thats just fine. but thats not the real agenda of the gay left. they want the govt to force the rest of us to agree that gay marriage is a normal and totally acceptable alternative lifestyle that can be chosen by kids as they reach puberty.

homosexuality is NOT a normal human condition. whether it is genetic of environmental is subject to debate, but its not normal and equal to heterosexuality. Therefore, a gay union should never be called a marriage. To do so, opens the legal door to all forms of couplings and groupings.

What makes homosexuality abnormal? Percentages? Like people with blue eyes, or people who are lefthanded? Or people who choose to be celibate? Or people who get surgeries to prevent them from fathering children or conceiving?

What is the abnormality of choosing a non-reproductive sexual orientation, if in fact it's a choice?

How many children does a human have to have before he or she becomes 'normal'?

biology 101 wytchey. every species has males and females. they get together to reproduce so their species will continue. Thats the way God or nature designed it.

having 9 fingers or being homosexual are aberations of the human condition, flaws, deformities, abnormalities.

I accept that you had no choice, but neither did the guy born with 9 fingers. Neither of you are normal. But we accept you as fellow human beings.

 

[g5000]

and thats just fine. but thats not the real agenda of the gay left. they want the govt to force the rest of us to agree that gay marriage is a normal and totally acceptable alternative lifestyle that can be chosen by kids as they reach puberty.

homosexuality is NOT a normal human condition. whether it is genetic of environmental is subject to debate, but its not normal and equal to heterosexuality. Therefore, a gay union should never be called a marriage. To do so, opens the legal door to all forms of couplings and groupings.

The gay agenda is not to teach that being gay is normal. They want to teach that being gay is not wrong.

Huge difference.

And you clearly don't like it. You want homosexuality to be considered wrong. When you boil away all the nonsense and logical fallacies behind the objections to same sex marriages, that's all you have left. "God hates fags".