Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[Redfish]

Based on what legal precedent?

overturning the prop 8 vote where twice the people of CA voted against gay marriage.

The SCOTUS did not rule in the Prop 8 case. You have no idea what precedent was set or not set do you?

wrong again wytchey. and from huff puff

Supreme Court Rules On Prop 8, Lets Gay Marriage Resume In California

 

[Seawytch]

overturning the prop 8 vote where twice the people of CA voted against gay marriage.

The SCOTUS did not rule in the Prop 8 case. You have no idea what precedent was set or not set do you?

wrong again wytchey. and from huff puff

Supreme Court Rules On Prop 8, Lets Gay Marriage Resume In California

Um, you know that is the CA Supreme Court, not the SCOTUS, right?

 

[Seawytch]

Fishy, the SCOTUS didn't rule in Prop 8, only DOMA. They sent Prop 8 back to the lower court. Catch up honey.

 

[RKMBrown]

Because, like you, I'm legally married. As long as you're exempt I am. Good luck getting it changed, but in the mean time, I'll get the same breaks you do.

American Christians give billions a year to their church that they aren't required to give. American liberals take billions in deductions from their taxes that they don't have to take.

You're uncommitted, insincere and flagrantly hypocritical. At least Christians are committed enough to their own cause to spend their own money. I may think you're equally nuts, but I have a lot more respect for them for that reason.

Word.

Donations to churches are 100% tax deductible and half of it comes back under the table from the preachers for the very large donations.

Half back... Huh?

 

[Redfish]

Fishy, the SCOTUS didn't rule in Prop 8, only DOMA. They sent Prop 8 back to the lower court. Catch up honey.

you are correct, I should have said CA supreme court. can you ever forgive me, wytchey?

But my point remains valid. bigamy and polygamy will come up soon, and the gay marriage prededent will be used to justify not infringing on the "rights" of bigamists and polygamists.

After all, they were born that way, they did not choose to be sexually attracted to more than one person at a time.

 

[Gadawg73]

Attraction is to the opposite sex. At last count there are billions out there.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You have yet to produce any evidence to support the claim that people choose who they are attracted to.

Were you attracted to both men and women and flipped a coin?

I don't recall a choice. When my friends were mooning over Shawn Cassidy and Leaf Garrett, I was crushing on Kate Jackson and Julie Andrews. In kindergarten I went to Catechism because the girl I had a crush on went. I did not choose these attractions. I do choose to act on those attraction. That's the only choice (and the reason "conversion" therapy is an abject failure, harmful and renounced by all major medical associations.)

Where is your evidence that it is a choice? You've provided a search string to twin studies, which do not support any "choice" assertion.

The mounting scientific evidence points to a predisposition regarding orientation. Gays will tell you that they don't choose their attractions. Reparative therapy has a success rate of less than 2% and those that are "successful" admit their feelings and attractions don't stop, only their acting upon them. What motivation could drive the insistence that orientation is a choice?

How many times do I have to tell you that I don't have any evidence to back up my position? I never claimed there was any such evidence, I just pointed out that the existing evidence indicates people are not born gay.

You didn't claim there was evidence you just pointed out existing evidence? WTF?

You made the claim, you can't back it up. Got it.

Is English the fifth of the 2 languages you know?

There is conclusive evidence that people are not born gay . I never claimed there is scientific evidence that people can choose their orientation, I have stated that I believe that, I have also stated that I understand the difference between belief and evidence. I also happen to understand the difference between anecdotal evidence and scientific evidence . If you want to keep arguing with the voices in your head leave me out of it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Done.
JSTOR: The Quarterly Review of Biology
I already did this by the way but you seem determined to actually ignore real scientific papers in preference to demanding that you are right.

Try again. Here is a full scientific paper on how epi-marks are the most likely cause of homosexuality and how they cause this (as well as a few concrete and testable predictions made by the model that would disprove the theory should the predictions be incorrect).

Now, I have presented scientific data backing my ideas up on this subject. I have done so a few times. It is YOUR turn now to address that data.

Actually, if I were to believe the epigeneticists, it actually would prove that people are not born that way, they become homosexual through a long process that programs them as they are exposed to different proteins as they grow. That might prove it isn't a choice, but I don't think they know what they are talking about yet.

Sure, you are free to ignore any and all scientific evidence that goes against your opinion just do not claim that all I am handing you is a bunch of biased opinion pieces.

Quite frankly, you are disagreeing with scientific evidence based solely on the inconvenient truth that it points to something that disagrees with your worldview.

C'mon, did you even read the "proof" you posted? They clearly say that they are guessing about what happens, and that they believe that they will eventually track down the exact mechanism of the change that triggers various changes necessary. That is not evidence it is theory. I want to see them prove they can track the actual protiens, and then explain why monozygotic twins, who actually share the same amniotic sack, develop differently. Until then, I will stick with the evidence that actually exists, and watch the theory with interest.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What, you collect statistics on who sucks cocks?
Damn, I do not believe I would have said that.

Another juvenile attempt to insult and offend me from the side of the debate that claims it doesn't have a problem with gays. It might help if you get counseling to deal with your need to prove you are a man by having sex with women.

I don't have any problem with gays, just with folks like you that claim they don't.

You have a problem with imaginary people that you think are me?

If you don't have a problem with gays why were you upset by me discussing guys sucking off other guys? Why did you think it would upset me?

 

[Seawytch]

How many times do I have to tell you that I don't have any evidence to back up my position? I never claimed there was any such evidence, I just pointed out that the existing evidence indicates people are not born gay.

You didn't claim there was evidence you just pointed out existing evidence? WTF?

You made the claim, you can't back it up. Got it.

Is English the fifth of the 2 languages you know?

There is conclusive evidence that people are not born gay . I never claimed there is scientific evidence that people can choose their orientation, I have stated that I believe that, I have also stated that I understand the difference between belief and evidence. I also happen to understand the difference between anecdotal evidence and scientific evidence . If you want to keep arguing with the voices in your head leave me out of it.

Provide your "conclusive" evidence already. You keep repeating there is evidence but provide squat.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You didn't claim there was evidence you just pointed out existing evidence? WTF?

You made the claim, you can't back it up. Got it.

Is English the fifth of the 2 languages you know?

There is conclusive evidence that people are not born gay . I never claimed there is scientific evidence that people can choose their orientation, I have stated that I believe that, I have also stated that I understand the difference between belief and evidence. I also happen to understand the difference between anecdotal evidence and scientific evidence . If you want to keep arguing with the voices in your head leave me out of it.

Provide your "conclusive" evidence already. You keep repeating there is evidence but provide squat.

I already did. You must have been convinced because you started demanding I provide proof that sexual orientation is a choice.

 

[Gadawg73]

I keep hearing this about "well, they already can get married".
OK, then why the opposition for them to just add a piece of signed paper into the equation.
That small thing fucks up the entire world?

 

[Seawytch]

Is English the fifth of the 2 languages you know?

There is conclusive evidence that people are not born gay . I never claimed there is scientific evidence that people can choose their orientation, I have stated that I believe that, I have also stated that I understand the difference between belief and evidence. I also happen to understand the difference between anecdotal evidence and scientific evidence . If you want to keep arguing with the voices in your head leave me out of it.

Provide your "conclusive" evidence already. You keep repeating there is evidence but provide squat.

I already did. You must have been convinced because you started demanding I provide proof that sexual orientation is a choice.

What? You dance more than Fred Astaire. You haven't provided squat. A search string isn't scientific evidence of jack shit.

 

[Redfish]

I keep hearing this about "well, they already can get married".
OK, then why the opposition for them to just add a piece of signed paper into the equation.
That small thing fucks up the entire world?

this thread is about where gay marriage will logically lead. Face it, some lawyer will take a bigamy or polygamy suit to the SCOTUS using gay marriage laws as a precedent and will claim that bigamists and polygamists are being discriminated against and that their civil rights are being stolen from them.

It will very hard to make a legal case against them now that gay marriage has been made legal. I know it, you know it, and everyone else who can put two logical thoughts together knows it.

 

[RKMBrown]

Well... it was good for Abijah, Abraham, Ahab, Ahasuerus, Ashur, Belshazzar, Benhadad, Caleb, David, Eliphaz, Elkanah, Esau, Ezra, Gideon, Jacob, Jehoiachin, Jehoiada, Jehoram, Jerahmeel, Joash, Lamech, Machir, Manasseh, Mered, Moses, Nahor, Rehoboam, Saul, Simeon, Solomon, and Zedekiah of the bible.

I don't see why polygamy should be illegal.

 

[Redfish]

Well... it was good for Abijah, Abraham, Ahab, Ahasuerus, Ashur, Belshazzar, Benhadad, Caleb, David, Eliphaz, Elkanah, Esau, Ezra, Gideon, Jacob, Jehoiachin, Jehoiada, Jehoram, Jerahmeel, Joash, Lamech, Machir, Manasseh, Mered, Moses, Nahor, Rehoboam, Saul, Simeon, Solomon, and Zedekiah of the bible.

I don't see why polygamy should be illegal.

sarcasm? I hope so.

 

[RKMBrown]

Well... it was good for Abijah, Abraham, Ahab, Ahasuerus, Ashur, Belshazzar, Benhadad, Caleb, David, Eliphaz, Elkanah, Esau, Ezra, Gideon, Jacob, Jehoiachin, Jehoiada, Jehoram, Jerahmeel, Joash, Lamech, Machir, Manasseh, Mered, Moses, Nahor, Rehoboam, Saul, Simeon, Solomon, and Zedekiah of the bible.

I don't see why polygamy should be illegal.

sarcasm? I hope so.

No I'm serious. Why should it be illegal. Name one reason. Name one person harmed by a plural marriage.

 

[Redfish]

Well... it was good for Abijah, Abraham, Ahab, Ahasuerus, Ashur, Belshazzar, Benhadad, Caleb, David, Eliphaz, Elkanah, Esau, Ezra, Gideon, Jacob, Jehoiachin, Jehoiada, Jehoram, Jerahmeel, Joash, Lamech, Machir, Manasseh, Mered, Moses, Nahor, Rehoboam, Saul, Simeon, Solomon, and Zedekiah of the bible.

I don't see why polygamy should be illegal.

sarcasm? I hope so.

No I'm serious. Why should it be illegal. Name one reason. Name one person harmed by a plural marriage.

not worthy of response

 

[RKMBrown]

sarcasm? I hope so.

No I'm serious. Why should it be illegal. Name one reason. Name one person harmed by a plural marriage.

not worthy of response

That's what I thought. NOTHING. No one harmed by polygamy. Typical authoritarian bull shit.

 

[kaz]

There are no Christian liberals?

No, there aren't. There are liberals who are Christian, but no Christian liberals. As with all liberals, women, blacks, gays, etc., liberals are liberals first and then a member of other groups.

I am well qualified for this one as my family is mostly conservative Christian, but I grew up in the liberal Church of the Brethren. My wife is conservative Christian. Since the church of the brethren is more midwest, we split going to Quaker churches I liked and conservative churches my wife likes.

BTW, it's a myth that it's the conservative churches are openly political. At the liberal churches I went to, politics is discussed openly and frequently. In the conservative churches, I can only remember once in my life their talking about politics. That was 2004 and all the minister said was to vote, the election was important. He did not say for whom he wanted people to vote for.

Like everything they say, the left are Partisan, political and dishonest. I'm libertarian because I'm fiscally conservative but militarily and socially liberal. I'm also a liberal with theocracy. There are BTW a lot of non-pacifists in pacifist churches. They are just like me that they want the military used just for defense, not for nation building and being in other people's yards.