Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[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.

Aaannnndddd close the yhread.

Another of the usual suspects that prefer to live with their head up their ass than consider the consequences of their positions being mandated by the government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You sound like one of those right wingers that think the government should be able to regulate sexual behavior even though they don't want the government to be able to take their pictures in public.

 

[J.E.D]

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.

Because it's a fucking stupid question.

 

[OriginalShroom]

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

You didn't answer the question.

Because it's a fucking stupid question.

No it's not. It's just any answer you give shoots your bigotted position down.

 

[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.

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

I already did, there are absolutely no rights that are a slippery slope because only infringements of rights, and entitlements, are slippery.

My position is, and always has been, that we should eliminate all use of the tax code for social engineering, make all consensual behavior legal, and stop criminalizing all the things you think should be illegal. You are the one that has to explain why you want to make it illegal to do things you don't like and legal to do the things you do.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

I agree to a point, but I'm not seeing incest or polygamy as being extreme.

The basis is love and equality, not sure how these are extreme in this era.

 

[J.E.D]

You didn't answer the question.

Because it's a fucking stupid question.

No it's not. It's just any answer you give shoots your bigotted position down.

Yes it is. And you're still a moron.

 

[idb]

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

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

I already did, there are absolutely no rights that are a slippery slope because only infringements of rights, and entitlements, are slippery.

My position is, and always has been, that we should eliminate all use of the tax code for social engineering, make all consensual behavior legal, and stop criminalizing all the things you think should be illegal. You are the one that has to explain why you want to make it illegal to do things you don't like and legal to do the things you do.

Why do I have to explain anything?

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

It was.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

I already did, there are absolutely no rights that are a slippery slope because only infringements of rights, and entitlements, are slippery.

My position is, and always has been, that we should eliminate all use of the tax code for social engineering, make all consensual behavior legal, and stop criminalizing all the things you think should be illegal. You are the one that has to explain why you want to make it illegal to do things you don't like and legal to do the things you do.

Why do I have to explain anything?

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

 

[idb]

I already did, there are absolutely no rights that are a slippery slope because only infringements of rights, and entitlements, are slippery.

My position is, and always has been, that we should eliminate all use of the tax code for social engineering, make all consensual behavior legal, and stop criminalizing all the things you think should be illegal. You are the one that has to explain why you want to make it illegal to do things you don't like and legal to do the things you do.

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.

 

[Noomi]

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.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

 

[idb]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Because it's a fucking stupid question.

No it's not. It's just any answer you give shoots your bigotted position down.

Yes it is. And you're still a moron.

You have demonstrated, perfectly, exactly how to tell when a Leftie has lost the discussion.

They refuse to answer the questions and start calling people names.

 

[PratchettFan]

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



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.

Are you in favor of the state bein gin the divorce, alimony, custody and inheritence business? Because all of them are related.

The state is in that business. So long as it is in that business it should not discriminate. It is not the role of the government to tell you how to live your life.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

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.

And if it was decided that denying you some of your rights serves "a useful function to society as a whole" that would be fine with you? Is that the basis we should use to determine what you can or cannot do with your life? Who do you propose determines what constitutes a "useful function"?

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

I have asked this question many times and I have yet to get a response. What exactly is the "gay agenda"?

 

[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.

I have asked this question many times and I have yet to get a response. What exactly is the "gay agenda"?

I'm pretty sure it's something to do with us all ending up marrying our pets.