Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[The Rabbi]

Why are their claims inferior to different sex marriages?

Because traditional marriage serves a useful function to society as a whole. Gay marriage serves no such function.

"A useful function to society as a whole"?
Are you a communist?

Are you a ninny?

 

[The Rabbi]

Why do we want to be such a denerate people?

It's part of the gay agenda. They want to break down traditional notions of morality and substitute hedonism. They seem to be making good progress.

 

[idb]

Because traditional marriage serves a useful function to society as a whole. Gay marriage serves no such function.

"A useful function to society as a whole"?
Are you a communist?

Are you a ninny?

You're using collective responsibility as your argument...communist.

 

[The Rabbi]

"A useful function to society as a whole"?
Are you a communist?

Are you a ninny?

You're using collective responsibility as your argument...communist.

No I'm not Do you have the slightest clue what you're babbling about?

 

[idb]

Why do we want to be such a denerate people?

It's part of the gay agenda. They want to break down traditional notions of morality and substitute hedonism. They seem to be making good progress.

Why are you so hung up on tradition and, who determines what's traditional and what isn't...the 'Taliban' believe that they're representing tradition as well?
Why not learn to think for yourself rather than blindly follow some notion of 'tradition'.
Don't be such a sheep.

 

[idb]

Are you a ninny?

You're using collective responsibility as your argument...communist.

No I'm not Do you have the slightest clue what you're babbling about?

Yes you are.
You said heterosexual marriage is useful to society as a whole.
So, individual rights should be secondary to the collective good of society...that's a slippery slope komrade.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Couldn't any law defining rights or governing actions be argued to be a 'slippery slope'?

If you have to register and micro-chip your dog what's to stop registration and micro-chipping of your family?

First of the usual suspects pops in and proves he didn't read the OP.

 

[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

 

[Quantum Windbag]

All slippery slope arguments are suspect because we can stop the slide at any point. It does however open up debate on other issues when one issue is settled so to speak.

How do you stop an avalanche?

 

[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.

Do you honestly believe that there are not people out there who want incestuous marriages? Polygamous marriages? And so forth? Why will their claims be inferior to those demanding same sex marriages? Once the precedent is established that marriage can mean whatever anyone wants, then that has to go for everyone. There is no limiting principle.

Nobody anywhere in the world wants incest to be legal.

Except for the many countries where it is legal, and a professor at Columbia University who likes to fuck his daughter.

Switzerland Considers Legalizing Consensual Incest; Columbia Professor Accused of Sex With Daughter - ABC News

 

[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

Having any state approved marriage is equally a slippery slope. Once you allow one group the freedom to do something you open the door for others to do so as well. Personally, I don't think it is the place of the state to tell anyone who they can marry or how many can be in that marriage. So long as the state is in the marriage business, it should not discriminate.

Why shouldn't the state be able to tell a father he cannot marry his daughter if they regulate marriage?

 

[J.E.D]

Do you honestly believe that there are not people out there who want incestuous marriages? Polygamous marriages? And so forth? Why will their claims be inferior to those demanding same sex marriages? Once the precedent is established that marriage can mean whatever anyone wants, then that has to go for everyone. There is no limiting principle.

Incest is illegal. Homosexuality is not. Next.

Homosexuality was illegal. Activists agitated to change it.
Next.
Are you really that thick?

Right, homosexuality used to be illegal. Now it is not. Do you want to change that? Are you really that much of an unAmerican piece of shit?

 

[OriginalShroom]

There is no argument for same gender marriage that can not be used to support any other form of marriage, be it between multiple partners or immediate family members.

The prevailng argument used "People have the right to marry who they love" has opens the door to all other forms of marriage between any and all consenting adults.

 

[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.

Do you honestly believe that there are not people out there who want incestuous marriages? Polygamous marriages? And so forth? Why will their claims be inferior to those demanding same sex marriages? Once the precedent is established that marriage can mean whatever anyone wants, then that has to go for everyone. There is no limiting principle.

Incest is illegal. Homosexuality is not. Next.

How can the state make incest illegal if it cannot go into the bedrooms of consenting adults?

 

[Zona]

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.

Aaannnndddd close the yhread.

 

[J.E.D]

Do you honestly believe that there are not people out there who want incestuous marriages? Polygamous marriages? And so forth? Why will their claims be inferior to those demanding same sex marriages? Once the precedent is established that marriage can mean whatever anyone wants, then that has to go for everyone. There is no limiting principle.

Incest is illegal. Homosexuality is not. Next.

How can the state make incest illegal if it cannot go into the bedrooms of consenting adults?

Incest is illegal. Homosexuality is not.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Incest is illegal. Homosexuality is not. Next.

How can the state make incest illegal if it cannot go into the bedrooms of consenting adults?

Incest is illegal. Homosexuality is not.

What right does the Government have in making a sex act between consenting adult in the privacy of their bedroom legal or illegal?

 

[J.E.D]

How can the state make incest illegal if it cannot go into the bedrooms of consenting adults?

Incest is illegal. Homosexuality is not.

What right does the Government have in making a sex act between consenting adult in the privacy of their bedroom legal or illegal?

Then petition your state legislature to make it legal for you to fuck your relatives

 

[idb]

Couldn't any law defining rights or governing actions be argued to be a 'slippery slope'?

If you have to register and micro-chip your dog what's to stop registration and micro-chipping of your family?

First of the usual suspects pops in and proves he didn't read the OP.

Hmmm...maybe you should read your own OP.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Incest is illegal. Homosexuality is not.

What right does the Government have in making a sex act between consenting adult in the privacy of their bedroom legal or illegal?

Then petition your state legislature to make it legal for you to fuck your relatives

You didn't answer the question.