Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[RKMBrown]

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.

The 14th amendment makes it ok to screw people if you apply due process.

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

As discussed, the eugenics argument is the legitimate argument based on the harm done to the inbred and the human species in general by said inbreeding.

 

[Sunshine]

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

When it comes to marriage, the fundamental rights claims and the equal protection arguments often intertwine. For example, Justice Kennedy’s opinion last month striking down a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act said that DOMA’s injection of “inequality into the United States Code” violated the “liberty” protected by the Constitution. The “inequality” part is equal protection language; the “liberty” wording is fundamental rights stuff. The analytical box is not all that important. 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. And prejudice—simply thinking something is “icky”—doesn’t count as a reason.
The arguments supporters of same-sex marriage have made in court do not sufficiently distinguish marriage for lesbians and gay men from other possible claimants to the marriage right. If marriage is about the ability to define one’s own family, what’s the argument against allowing brothers and sisters (or first cousins) to wed? 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?
In private conversations with leaders in the marriage movement, I often hear two responses. The first is that there is no political energy behind a fight for incestuous or polygamous marriages. The second is that they would be fine if those restrictions fell as well but, in effect, “don’t quote me on that.” The first of these responses, of course, is a political response but not a legal one. The second is to concede the point, with hopes that they won't have to come out of the closet on the concession until more same-sex victories are won in political and legal arenas.
Can we do better? What are the possible distinctions?

The Slippery Slope to Polygamy and Incest

For the intelligent people, Greenfield is a liberal law professor that actually supports same sex marraige.

Kent Greenfield - Boston College

The state defines what is and is not incest. In some states sex with a first cousin is incest and in others not only is it not considered incest, first cousins can actually marry. In KY, you can't marry your first cousin. In TN you can marry your first cousin, also in California.

State Laws Regarding Marriages Between First Cousins

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally, is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues.

>>> When "marriage" means whatever anyone wants it to mean then it has no meaning at all.

Your statement has no meaning because no-one except YOU has proposed that marriage means anything anyone wants it to mean.

Actually if you had bothered to read the OP you would have seen this is not true.
But even so my post did not posit that anyone said that. However it is the logical conclusion of the gay marriage debate. If marriage can be defined any way some special interest group wants it defined then it loses all definition and becomes meaningless.
Sort of like your post.

NO. When marriage becomes 'meaningless' is when you select out one variety of marriage and bestow government benefits upon it to the exclusion of all other legitimate forms of marriage.

Is it also meaningless when the singles out one type of killing to define as murder? Isn't the purpose of defining something to make it easier to distinguish it from everything else? If defining something actually means making it less exclusive couldn't we just use one word for everything?

Personally personally personally personally personally personally personally personally personally personally, personally personally personally personally personally personally personally personally personally personally. Personally personally personally personally personally personally?

personally personally personally personally personally personally personally personally personally

See the problem?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes.

Prove it.

Here are the laws:
http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/criminal_incest chart _2010.pdf

Here is a discussion about the current basis being genetics.
CNN.com - FindLaw Forum: A genetic report should cause a rethinking of incest laws - April 9, 2002

Here is a report on the topic from the Max-Planck-Institute:
II. Incest in Criminology and Genetics

In Arkansas incest is legal if everyone is under 16, what does that prove?

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

No.

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

next he will play the victim card or lie about something.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Slippery Slope Fallacy is called a fallacy for a reason.

What the "professor" failed to recognize is that you cannot justify the legalization of a practice that is harmful in the aggregate (incest) by pointing to the legality of one that is not (homosexuality).

Simply put, he's an idiot.

But as long as we are on the subject of polygamy, the only people I have heard making the case for legalizing polygamy are the bigots who are opposed to same sex marriages. They go on and on and on about the "traditional definition of marraige we have had for thousands of years".

Oops! In the Bible, the "traditional" definition from thousands of years ago was polygamy, with special concubine sauce.

You are using poor reasoning, AKA a fallacy, to argue against something you don't want to admit it true.

How is incest harmful to anyone, including the participants?

You really should pay more attention to the real world and stop living in the fantasy world where you not hearing something proves it isn't happening.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I might have missed one, but most of the people who are bringing up pedophilia are the idiots, like you, who think you can pick and chose who gets to get married.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Not mine, unless they want me to pay for it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I posted a link about a father/daughter incest relationship earlier. Feel free to go read it and point out what harm was caused.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Why do people think fallacy means false? Did everyone go to public school in the last 10 years?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

What is the legitimate argument?

As discussed, the eugenics argument is the legitimate argument based on the harm done to the inbred and the human species in general by said inbreeding.

You didn't discuss anything, you made a stupid statement, and refused to explain why people withe demonstrated genetic disorders, which are more likely to be passed on than a rare reinforcement of a recessive gene that has a negative outcome is among healthy siblings, are allowed to get married.

Unfortunately, for you, I actually understand the math here.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

When it comes to marriage, the fundamental rights claims and the equal protection arguments often intertwine. For example, Justice Kennedy’s opinion last month striking down a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act said that DOMA’s injection of “inequality into the United States Code” violated the “liberty” protected by the Constitution. The “inequality” part is equal protection language; the “liberty” wording is fundamental rights stuff. The analytical box is not all that important. 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. And prejudice—simply thinking something is “icky”—doesn’t count as a reason.
The arguments supporters of same-sex marriage have made in court do not sufficiently distinguish marriage for lesbians and gay men from other possible claimants to the marriage right. If marriage is about the ability to define one’s own family, what’s the argument against allowing brothers and sisters (or first cousins) to wed? 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?
In private conversations with leaders in the marriage movement, I often hear two responses. The first is that there is no political energy behind a fight for incestuous or polygamous marriages. The second is that they would be fine if those restrictions fell as well but, in effect, “don’t quote me on that.” The first of these responses, of course, is a political response but not a legal one. The second is to concede the point, with hopes that they won't have to come out of the closet on the concession until more same-sex victories are won in political and legal arenas.
Can we do better? What are the possible distinctions?

The Slippery Slope to Polygamy and Incest

For the intelligent people, Greenfield is a liberal law professor that actually supports same sex marraige.

Kent Greenfield - Boston College

The state defines what is and is not incest. In some states sex with a first cousin is incest and in others not only is it not considered incest, first cousins can actually marry. In KY, you can't marry your first cousin. In TN you can marry your first cousin, also in California.

State Laws Regarding Marriages Between First Cousins

Which proves that, if it is unconstitutional in the US to deny marriage to same sex couples, it is also illegal to apply it to incestuous couples, especially if they are same sex couples.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually if you had bothered to read the OP you would have seen this is not true.
But even so my post did not posit that anyone said that. However it is the logical conclusion of the gay marriage debate. If marriage can be defined any way some special interest group wants it defined then it loses all definition and becomes meaningless.
Sort of like your post.

NO. When marriage becomes 'meaningless' is when you select out one variety of marriage and bestow government benefits upon it to the exclusion of all other legitimate forms of marriage.

Is it also meaningless when the singles out one type of killing to define as murder? Isn't the purpose of defining something to make it easier to distinguish it from everything else? If defining something actually means making it less exclusive couldn't we just use one word for everything?

Personally personally personally personally personally personally personally personally personally personally, personally personally personally personally personally personally personally personally personally personally. Personally personally personally personally personally personally?

personally personally personally personally personally personally personally personally personally

See the problem?

Given that monogamy and polygamy have co-existed for years, how is it more meaningful, or more accurate in terms of definition,

to arbitrarily decide that the word 'marriage' only means 'one man one woman'?

People accuse the same sex marriage advocates of trying to 'redefine marriage'.

Wasn't marriage 'redefined' when governments in this country decided that for legal purposes of marital recognition, the word 'marriage' would only mean one man one woman?

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

You have a very stupid derivative analogy. You yelling at your family members causes injuries. Difference of kind not degree.

Very, very stupid RKM. Try again.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

What's the injury caused by an incestuous marriage that is of sufficient significance that the government can invoke the right to prohibit it?

Increased possibility of birth defects in children? What's that rate exactly?

1. How does it compare for example to the increased rate of birth defects when women over 40 have children?

2. How does one justify this ban to an incestuous couple where one or both are proveably sterile?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are asking RKM to discuss matters he does not comprehend.

 

[RKMBrown]

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

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

I posted a link about a father/daughter incest relationship earlier. Feel free to go read it and point out what harm was caused.

Already stated dozens of times. The harm is caused to the inbred child.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

I posted a link about a father/daughter incest relationship earlier. Feel free to go read it and point out what harm was caused.

Already stated dozens of times. The harm is caused to the inbred child.

There are all sorts of circumstances that create a probability of genetic defects in children,

not the least of which is random chance.

On an ironic note, how would one justify opposing incestuous marriage on the possible birth defect grounds,

while at the same time opposing abortion in cases where fetal birth defects are known to exist?