Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[Soggy in NOLA]

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?

Wow, so you've now stooped to arguing for incest?



When did you decide to become part of the mouth-breathing, inbred crowd?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

You know me, lol.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

You said other than the legitimate argument what is another legitimate argument. Your statement was silly. It seemed as if you wanted to refute the legitimate argument by eliminating it from the discussion.

Now you are bragging about your math skills, in some apparent attempt to use the odds of harm as a means to avoid the law. What is your point? That we should be allowed to jay walk since the odds of harm are low?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Wow, so you've now stooped to arguing for incest?



When did you decide to become part of the mouth-breathing, inbred crowd?

I'm defending the principle of equal marriage rights. You've heard of the word principle, right?

and no I don't mean the guy was the boss of your school.

 

[Gadawg73]

I am American by birth, southern by the Grace of God. I grew up in the deep south and my high school team was the first integrated team in the county.
When I was young a local retired military officer that happened to be black moved back to my hometown in the mid 60s after his retirement and I saw this decorated military man threatened with imprisonment if he married his WHITE fiancee there.
Until 2000 it was illegal in Alabama.
"All they want is our white women" was the cry and "It will destroy morality and the American culture if we allow it"
It was no one's business but the old mother hen gossipers had nothing else to do.
2 people that loved each other, were not hurting anyone and were committed to each other wanted to solidify their bond with marriage.
It should not be anyone's business as they were not cousins, not youth and not animals.
Same with gay marriage but once again the mother hen busy bodies are out in full force.
If 2 gay folk want to get married stay out of it.
If you oppose gay marriage I respect that so do not marry someone of the same sex. That is your right and it is not your right to tell someone else who to marry.
You good folks are acting very silly about this. Mind your own business.
It is much ado about nothing and how many of you claimed allowing gays to serve in the military would "cause unit cohesion to fall apart"?
30 years from now the results of allowing gay folk to marry will have most of all of you stating "why the hell did I oppose that? That was silly of me"
Gay marriage AFFECTS NO ONE.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Did I say that?

They are redefining marriage, you just don't want to admit it.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

More in the Progressives tactic of incrementalism.

It goes like this: Come on.. all we want is this one little thing, what's the big deal? Then they get it and next time it's: Come on, you already said that was ok, what's the big deal with this?

Then before you know it, Fred is marring a goat, Elmer is buggering five year olds, etc.

These folks are fucking sick.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You cannot say that unless you can point to said inbred child.

By the way, inbreeding occurs when a gene pool is too small, and takes generations to occur. It doesn't happen simply because cousins, or even siblings, have sex. Also, it is just as likely that any child of siblings would have a positive trait reinforced as a negative one.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

You said other than the legitimate argument what is another legitimate argument. Your statement was silly. It seemed as if you wanted to refute the legitimate argument by eliminating it from the discussion.

Now you are bragging about your math skills, in some apparent attempt to use the odds of harm as a means to avoid the law. What is your point? That we should be allowed to jay walk since the odds of harm are low?

It's possible that the genetic argument is 'legitimate', but still, if the use of that argument is to deny a right to only one set of individuals to whom that argument might apply,

i.e., singling out incest, constitutes a violation of their right to equal protection under the law,

since it does not apply similar prohibitions to similar groups.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Not so. "Informed consent" is a legal construct. What is the legal age of consent? 18? 16? 21? In Europe it's 14. All of it basically arbitrary. Which means it can be overturned.

 

[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.

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.

Just because you do not understand a thing does not make the person you are disagreeing with stupid.

Again, you are wrong for many reasons.

I'll discuss two:

1) While psychological injuries are a different kind of injury to physical injuries, both types of injuries may in fact be un-lawful and be seen as a felonious attack. Additionally, both may be considered grievous injuries. For example, murdering someone based on race.

2) Murder is a crime against someone's life as it ends the person's life with malice and forethought. Inbreeding is also a crime against someone's life, with malice and forethought. Inbreeding can cause a baby to die soon after birth. Inbreeding can cause the inbred to have seriously debilitating and very painful lives. Degree? Really?

 

[Gadawg73]

Years ago I got over all this nonsense.
And then seeing Sir Charles Barkley speak about it, wow, that just tells the human side to this. Why people want to continue to treat these folks as 2nd class citizens is incredible.
The absurd part of it is the claim that allowing gays to marry is "redefining the definition of my marriage".
They must have a sorry ass marriage to begin with if they believe that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You said other than the legitimate argument what is another legitimate argument. Your statement was silly. It seemed as if you wanted to refute the legitimate argument by eliminating it from the discussion.

Now you are bragging about your math skills, in some apparent attempt to use the odds of harm as a means to avoid the law. What is your point? That we should be allowed to jay walk since the odds of harm are low?

I did no such thing, I asked you to explain why your misunderstanding of the term inbred makes it legitimate to deny people marraige when it is legal for people with obvious genetic defects to get married and have children.

 

[National Socialist]

I am all for allowing adults to have any relationship they choose. No reason for law to be involved or government.

 

[Gadawg73]

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?

Did I say that?

They are redefining marriage, you just don't want to admit it.

How specifically are they redefining YOUR marriage?

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

You said other than the legitimate argument what is another legitimate argument. Your statement was silly. It seemed as if you wanted to refute the legitimate argument by eliminating it from the discussion.

Now you are bragging about your math skills, in some apparent attempt to use the odds of harm as a means to avoid the law. What is your point? That we should be allowed to jay walk since the odds of harm are low?

It's possible that the genetic argument is 'legitimate', but still, if the use of that argument is to deny a right to only one set of individuals to whom that argument might apply,

i.e., singling out incest, constitutes a violation of their right to equal protection under the law,

since it does not apply similar prohibitions to similar groups.

Yes, "singling out incest" would on first blush appear to constitute "a violation of their right to equal protection under the law." However, the due process clause allows said violation. Sucks, but that's what the due process clause is for.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Not so. "Informed consent" is a legal construct. What is the legal age of consent? 18? 16? 21? In Europe it's 14. All of it basically arbitrary. Which means it can be overturned.

Marriage is a legal contract therefore only those of legal age to give consent can enter into a marriage contract based upon whatever age is determined by the jurisdiction concerned. Children are defined as being below the legal age of consent. Animals cannot give consent no matter how old they might be.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

You said other than the legitimate argument what is another legitimate argument. Your statement was silly. It seemed as if you wanted to refute the legitimate argument by eliminating it from the discussion.

Now you are bragging about your math skills, in some apparent attempt to use the odds of harm as a means to avoid the law. What is your point? That we should be allowed to jay walk since the odds of harm are low?

I did no such thing, I asked you to explain why your misunderstanding of the term inbred makes it legitimate to deny people marraige when it is legal for people with obvious genetic defects to get married and have children.

1) You did not ask that question. But it is funny
2) I'm fairly familiar with the term inbred. Which definition are you using as evidence of your misunderstanding of my statements?
3) Your strawman about refusing an inbred's right to life and liberty based solely on the laws meant to stop incestuous marriages ... lol that's funny too.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

Not so. "Informed consent" is a legal construct. What is the legal age of consent? 18? 16? 21? In Europe it's 14. All of it basically arbitrary. Which means it can be overturned.

Marriage is a legal contract therefore only those of legal age to give consent can enter into a marriage contract based upon whatever age is determined by the jurisdiction concerned. Children are defined as being below the legal age of consent. Animals cannot give consent no matter how old they might be.

You're confirming what I wrote, not refuting it.
Yes, consent is a legal fiction. So if a 5 yr old gives consent then it's no better or worse than a 20 year old.
Animals are property so no consent needed to marry one.

 

[bendog]

I wonder why he didn't publish that in a law journal.