Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[Samson]

The posts in this topic are classic bigotry using the typical pathetic illogic of bigots. Attempts to equate being gay with being a pedophile.

Since you jackholes can't prove being gay is bad relative to being straight, you have to try to connect it to something which is. To argue that legalizing gay marriages means we have to legalize incest marriages is to argue they are morally the same. I see what you did there.

Morons.

Correct: As we all should be aware, being Queer is bad (or good) relative to being Black.

 

[g5000]

The posts in this topic are classic bigotry using the typical pathetic illogic of bigots. Attempts to equate being gay with being a pedophile.

Since you jackholes can't prove being gay is bad relative to being straight, you have to try to connect it to something which is. To argue that legalizing gay marriages means we have to legalize incest marriages is to argue they are morally the same. I see what you did there.

Morons.

What the fuck does this mindless drek have to do with anything?

It means my post is so far above your head, the best you can do is, "What the fuck does this mindless drek have to do with anything?"

I am sorry you are too stupid to understand it.

But hey, I provided a link that explains what slippery slope logical fallacies are. Maybe you can understand some of the words in it. I found the simplest one I could for you guys.

 

[g5000]

The posts in this topic are classic bigotry using the typical pathetic illogic of bigots. Attempts to equate being gay with being a pedophile.

Since you jackholes can't prove being gay is bad relative to being straight, you have to try to connect it to something which is. To argue that legalizing gay marriages means we have to legalize incest marriages is to argue they are morally the same. I see what you did there.

Morons.

Correct: As we all should be aware, being Queer is bad (or good) relative to being Black.

When you strip away the profoundly stupid arguments and illogic used against same sex marriage, what you find deep down inside these bigots is a Westboro Baptist holding a GOD HATES FAGS sign.

Seriously.

 

[BobPlumb]

Who's business is it if two gay siblings want to marry.?

 

[Derideo_Te]

when gay marriage becomes legal, then there is not way that SCOTUS will deny equal rights to bigamists and polygamists.

the legal system will have a field day with this, lawyers will get rich, and our culture will go down the drain.

two men or two women are not a marriage. but , if they decide to enter into a mutual support contract then they should have the same rights as a married couple.

Now, having said that, how do you on the left intend to stop polygamists and bigamists from demanding those same benefits?

Don't forget the pedophiles. They have the perfect format to follow now since the homos have opened all the doors for them.

I am sure that NAMBLA is celebrating the SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage.

these fricken libtards have no idea what a can of worms they have opened.

Neither children nor animals can give informed consent therefore your NAMBLA argument is going nowhere.

 

[RKMBrown]

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

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

Yes. We discriminate against murders too.

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

Try again. Both cause injury. Thus not a false derivative analogy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why do I have to explain anything?

You don't, you can remain dishonest and a hypocrite.

Now you're just acting all confused.
Where did I claim any of those things you say?

Stop thrashing about looking for an argument and admit you've gone off half-cocked...which, admittedly, is half-cocked more than you usually act.

You didn't try to say that all rights are a slippery slope? Then try to pretend me challenging you on that somehow meant I didn't read the article I posted?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

That is typical of conservatives. They have no other arguments against SSM.

I can provide you with a list of people who want polygamy to be legal, they even have a TV show. Yet, somehow, conservatives are the ones who typically deny reality.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If liberty protects, as Kennedy wrote ten years ago in Lawrence v. Texas, the case striking down Texas’s anti-sodomy law, the “right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,” why can’t people in polyamorous relationships claim that right as well? If it’s wrong to exclude groups because of prejudice, are we sure the uneasiness most of us feel about those who love more than one, or love one of their own, shouldn't count as prejudice?

The Slippery Slope to Polygamy and Incest

Because laws prohibiting “polyamorous relationships,” brothers and sisters marrying, adults marrying children and the like - unlike laws prohibiting same-sex couples their 14th Amendment right to access a state’s marriage law - are rationally based, pursue a legitimate legislative end, are predicated on objective facts and evidence, and are applied to everyone equally. No race, gender, class of persons, or ethnic group is singled out for exclusion.

Did you read the article I posted?

Didn't think so. The liberal law professor who wrote it points out why you are stupid for making the argument you just made. Feel free to educate yourself, then come back and pretend you always knew it.

And, no, polygamists don’t constitute a ‘class of persons.’

Why not? What makes them a non class?

In fact, polygamy is not bigamy, as the latter involves a legally recognized marriage, where there is one man, two wives, and two legally issued and recognized marriage certificates. ‘Polygamy’ may be a man simply living with several women, all unmarried, which is perfectly legal already. And bigamy is usually prosecuted in the context of fraud, not the gender make up of the relationship – there’s no Constitutional right to commit fraud.

What? Did someone say it was, or are you just stupid.

Nevermind.

Adults not being allowed to marry children is rationally based, so too with brothers marrying sisters. And again, these prohibitions are applied equally to everyone, no group or class of persons is singled out for exclusion, which is not the case with same-sex couples.

Who said anything about children?

As Greenfield himself notes: “What it boils down to is that when the government wants to exclude groups from something important like marriage, it has to show good reasons for the exclusion.”

Indeed.

As the courts have already held, there is no good reason to exclude same-sex couples from marriage law.

There is also no good reason to exclude polygamists, or people who are related.

Consequently, concerns with regard to states acknowledging the equal protection rights of same-sex couples in no way constitutes a ‘slippery slope’ with regard to polygamy being made ‘legal,’ as any court challenge on 14th Amendment grounds would ultimately fail.

Because you are stupid everyone else is?

Last, with regard to this observation by Greenfield: “If anything, the argument from political disenfranchisement cuts the other way—that polygamous and incestuous couples deserve more constitutional protection than same-sex couples.”

The mistake Greenfield makes here is equating homosexuals/same-sex couples – a legally recognized class of persons in the context of one’s 5th Amendment right to individual liberty – with polygamous and incestuous couples, who possess no such right. A homosexual exists as a gay man or lesbian woman whether married or not, the same is not true for a polygamist or those seeking an incestuous relationship. Wishing to marry one’s sister is not a protected individual liberty, nor is wishing to have more than one wife.

Why don't they have that right, other than it bothers you?

Greenfield also errs in that same-sex couples seek to access marriage law exactly as it exists now, unchanged and unaltered – a state recognized union of two equal partners. The same is not true with polygamous and incestuous couples. This is why there’s no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ since marriage law as it exists now can accommodate same sex couples, the exact same marriage law opposite-sex couples access.

That was even dumber than J.E.D. saying no one wants polygamous marriage.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Correct.

Same-sex couples seek to enter into marriage exactly as it exists now, unchanged.

References to “legalize bestiality, marry their siblings and practice legal pedophilia” are all red herrings.

If same sex couples didn't want to change marriage as it exists no one would be arguing about it, would they?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Right there

The mistake Greenfield makes here is equating homosexuals/same-sex couples – a legally recognized class of persons in the context of one’s 5th Amendment right to individual liberty – with polygamous and incestuous couples, who possess no such right. A homosexual exists as a gay man or lesbian woman whether married or not, the same is not true for a polygamist or those seeking an incestuous relationship. Wishing to marry one’s sister is not a protected individual liberty, nor is wishing to have more than one wife.

is the riposte to the 'slippery slope' argument.

Perhaps you can explain how simply declaring that some people are not covered by the 5th Amendment makes it true.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My guess is that the normal suspects won't do any research before they comment on this.
]

If someone is trying to make INcest legal, I'll be right there in the trenches with you against it.

Of course, there are states in this country where you can marry your first cousin, most of which went for Romney last time, but Incest is probably a bad idea. Which is why there are laws against it. Which renders discussion of incestuous marriages moot.

Polygamy- just can't get that worked up about that one. We already have polygamy for the affluent. One is called "the Wife" and the other is called "The Mistress". But I digress.

So, hey, instead of making silly "Slippery slope" arguments, tell us why any of us should care that gays are getting married when we have much more important problems.

Where the fuck did I say I think incest should be illegal? You should stop lying to yourself about being smart enough to hold a conversation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Nobody? Seriously?

Legalize polygamy: Marriage equality for all. - Slate Magazine

Polygamy was legal long before there was a same sex marriage movement.

Tell J.E.D., not me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Other than the eugenics argument,

what's the case against incestuous marriage?

Why would you want a list of illegitimate arguments when the legitimate one is staring you in the face?

What is the legitimate argument?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Nobody? Seriously?

Legalize polygamy: Marriage equality for all. - Slate Magazine

Polygamy was legal long before there was a same sex marriage movement.

Tell J.E.D., not me.

So was stoning, burning at the stake, beheading, drawing and quartering, etc. Somebody needs to tell NYC that as a society, we evolve... but, in his world, gay marriage and God only knows what other weird shit he espouses is seen as progress.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's funny how the slippery slope argument always draws the line right after the slippery slope arguers have gotten what they want.

Funny how people use slippery slope arguments when they don't have a valid argument.

Fallacy does not mean false, slippery slope is a valid argument.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It's funny how the slippery slope argument always draws the line right after the slippery slope arguers have gotten what they want.

Funny how people use slippery slope arguments when they don't have a valid argument.

Slippery slop is a valid argument.

A lot more valid than simply calling you a bigot if you don't want to recognize the marriage of Bill and Fred as legitimate.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why would you want a list of illegitimate arguments when the legitimate one is staring you in the face?

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

Yes.

Can you explain why it is not illegal for people with muscular dystrophy, Down's syndrome, or other genetic diseases to get married?

 

[Plasmaball]

Funny how people use slippery slope arguments when they don't have a valid argument.

Slippery slop is a valid argument.

A lot more valid than simply calling you a bigot if you don't want to recognize the marriage of Bill and Fred as legitimate.

calling people like you bigots is a lot more factual then your slippery slope argument.

 

[G.T.]

Slippery slop is a valid argument.

A lot more valid than simply calling you a bigot if you don't want to recognize the marriage of Bill and Fred as legitimate.

calling people like you bigots is a lot more factual then your slippery slope argument.

Exactly.

What he just said, in effect, is that bigots shouldn't be called bigots. Derp.