Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[NYcarbineer]

QWB and the other socons are beginning to realize that Euro-centric protestant traditionalism is waning.

Quite a few European countries have made incest legal.

Queen Victoria married her first cousin. Was that illegal at the time?

 

[The Rabbi]

De facto same sex marriage has always been around. I doubt there's anyone on this board who doesn't know some gay couple from their past who were living as a married couple.

I know plenty of gay couples that lived as roommates.

Unless you believe that there is no such thing as marriage except civil marriage then you have to acknowledge that same sex marriage has its own legitimate history among the other forms of marriage.

What history is that? No society endured for long with gay marriage.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I know plenty of gay couples that lived as roommates.

Unless you believe that there is no such thing as marriage except civil marriage then you have to acknowledge that same sex marriage has its own legitimate history among the other forms of marriage.

Newsflash, I believe that, but that does not force me to lie that it is true.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Are you making the catch-22 argument that since society for a long time has never allowed to be legally recognized as marriages same sex relationships that in every way functioned as marriages,

therefore same sex couples have no claim to marriage equality because there have never been same sex marriages?

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

The state discriminates every day in that business. That's what laws are all about, discriminating between the rightful and lawful and the unlawful and illicit.

Discriminating in the sense that the state decides who is entitled to a given right and who is not, based solely upon who they are. Certainly the state has done that in the past, but it should not being doing that.

 

[PratchettFan]

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"?

I have news for you. That happens every day. Why do you not have the right to steal and murder? Why do you not have the right to slander people? Why do you not have the right to expose military secrets? All individual rights are balanced against a state interest. That's the basis of Con law.

So, your position is that the state determines what your rights are and you see that as right and proper. If the state decides you should not own a gun, then that is fine by you. If the state decides you need to paint your house a particular color, or that you need to share your house with someone who does not have one, then that is simply balancing individual rights against the state interest.

You do understand that makes you a communist, don't you?

 

[PratchettFan]

i'd care but i don't. freedom of choice is a wonderful thing

There's a difference between freedom of choice and utter degeneracy... but we wouldn't expect you to understand this.

Yes, there is. But we are talking about people deciding who they want to spend their lives with. When did entering into a committed relationship become degenerate?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Quite a few European countries have made incest legal.

Proof, please, and then compare any instances with similar laws in America. You may begin with TN and UT.

Go back and read my posts in this thread, I already provided a list of countries that have legal incest. If you want to compare them to anything, feel free.

Your affirmative duty requires you to do that, not me.

This is a point that is fail for you. No one will require you, much less permit you, to marry your sister or daughter.

Now, go to, fellow, and stop making a laughingstock of yourself.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The only degeneracy in this thread are those individuals who wish to prevent committed individuals from entering into committed relationships that are recognized by the state.

The very fact that the reactionaries have lost this argument demonstrates their perverted vision of the world has been losing that grip on the country.

 

[PratchettFan]

Do you honestly believe that there are not people out there who want incestuous marriages? Polygamous marriages? And so forth?

And if they do, so what? Why shouldn't they be allowed to do so? It's their life. If one man wants to marry four women and everyone in this union enters in voluntarily then what's the problem. More power to him. Only a nut job would want multiple wives in my opinion. I couldn't handle the one I had. Can't imagine four.

When marriage means whatever someone wants it to mean then it ceases to have any meaning.

I would say that is a small price to pay for liberty.

 

[Gadawg73]

"I am a conservative BUT I want to use the power of government over the individual, even though the Constitution specifically demands I not do it, to tell gay folks they can not marry and make the decision on who can "legally" get an abortion and who can not."

We now have wannabe "conservatives" that want the United States Constitution, a document FOUNDED ON THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL, to tell people what THEY CAN NOT DO, instead of supporting The United States Constitution WHICH ALWAYS TELLS GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CAN NOT DO.

The modern day religious right "conservative" has no understanding of the Constitution and the rights of the INDIVIDUAL.

To date NO ONE has stated how IN ANY WAY gay marriage changes the definition OF THEIR MARRIAGE.

Because that is a lame and bogus BULL SHIT excuse for an "argument".
If we can not defend the rights of those we may despise the most then we are nothing other than MILK WEAK PUSSIES.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

The state discriminates every day in that business. That's what laws are all about, discriminating between the rightful and lawful and the unlawful and illicit.

Discriminating in the sense that the state decides who is entitled to a given right and who is not, based solely upon who they are. Certainly the state has done that in the past, but it should not being doing that.

We discriminate against felons and illegal aliens in voting rights. We discriminate against children in voting. We discriminate against traitors in the first amendment. There's a whole list.

 

[The Rabbi]

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"?

I have news for you. That happens every day. Why do you not have the right to steal and murder? Why do you not have the right to slander people? Why do you not have the right to expose military secrets? All individual rights are balanced against a state interest. That's the basis of Con law.

So, your position is that the state determines what your rights are and you see that as right and proper. If the state decides you should not own a gun, then that is fine by you. If the state decides you need to paint your house a particular color, or that you need to share your house with someone who does not have one, then that is simply balancing individual rights against the state interest.

You do understand that makes you a communist, don't you?

You understand your post makes you an ignoramus, don't you?

 

[The Rabbi]

i'd care but i don't. freedom of choice is a wonderful thing

There's a difference between freedom of choice and utter degeneracy... but we wouldn't expect you to understand this.

Yes, there is. But we are talking about people deciding who they want to spend their lives with. When did entering into a committed relationship become degenerate?

Why do you suppose it's a committed relationship? Gays cheat like hell on their partners.

 

[BobPlumb]

Since same sex couples do not biologically produce offspring with each other, the birth defect issue is not an issue with them. Thus, same sex marriage opens the door for same sex siblings to marry if they so desire.

 

[The Rabbi]

And if they do, so what? Why shouldn't they be allowed to do so? It's their life. If one man wants to marry four women and everyone in this union enters in voluntarily then what's the problem. More power to him. Only a nut job would want multiple wives in my opinion. I couldn't handle the one I had. Can't imagine four.

When marriage means whatever someone wants it to mean then it ceases to have any meaning.

I would say that is a small price to pay for liberty.

Destruction of a foundation of society is a small price to pay? You have issues with proportinality I see.

 

[Freewill]

OK, if we can redefine marriage for between a man and a man then what right does the state to say a man can't marry more then one woman? What is the basis for the prohibition? Why do most folks think less of a man who marries more then one woman then a man who sodomizes his mate? After that why does the state limit marriage at all? Why can't two siblings marry? What right does the state have to stop it? Old enough to bleed old enough to breed...what the hell is the purpose of laws setting an age limits? Can't legislate morality, so I have been told, then what is the purpose of marriage laws in the first place?

I think the slippery slope argument is quite right. What right does a gay person have to tell a person they can't marry their daughter?

 

[Freewill]

There's a difference between freedom of choice and utter degeneracy... but we wouldn't expect you to understand this.

Yes, there is. But we are talking about people deciding who they want to spend their lives with. When did entering into a committed relationship become degenerate?

Why do you suppose it's a committed relationship? Gays cheat like hell on their partners.

And since when does a person need a marriage license to be in a committed relation?

 

[Gadawg73]

OK, if we can redefine marriage for between a man and a man then what right does the state to say a man can't marry more then one woman? What is the basis for the prohibition? Why do most folks think less of a man who marries more then one woman then a man who sodomizes his mate? After that why does the state limit marriage at all? Why can't two siblings marry? What right does the state have to stop it? Old enough to bleed old enough to breed...what the hell is the purpose of laws setting an age limits? Can't legislate morality, so I have been told, then what is the purpose of marriage laws in the first place?

I think the slippery slope argument is quite right. What right does a gay person have to tell a person they can't marry their daughter?

First you have to prove that gay marriage "redefines marriage" for JUST ONE married heterosexual married couple.
JUST ONE.
Where is that married couple that immediately after a gay couple gets married has THEIR MARRIAGE "REDEFINED"?

 

[The Rabbi]

OK, if we can redefine marriage for between a man and a man then what right does the state to say a man can't marry more then one woman? What is the basis for the prohibition? Why do most folks think less of a man who marries more then one woman then a man who sodomizes his mate? After that why does the state limit marriage at all? Why can't two siblings marry? What right does the state have to stop it? Old enough to bleed old enough to breed...what the hell is the purpose of laws setting an age limits? Can't legislate morality, so I have been told, then what is the purpose of marriage laws in the first place?

I think the slippery slope argument is quite right. What right does a gay person have to tell a person they can't marry their daughter?

First you have to prove that gay marriage "redefines marriage" for JUST ONE married heterosexual married couple.
JUST ONE.
Where is that married couple that immediately after a gay couple gets married has THEIR MARRIAGE "REDEFINED"?

Their marriage status is no longer reserved for a man and woman like themselves.
That was easy.

 

[Freewill]

OK, if we can redefine marriage for between a man and a man then what right does the state to say a man can't marry more then one woman? What is the basis for the prohibition? Why do most folks think less of a man who marries more then one woman then a man who sodomizes his mate? After that why does the state limit marriage at all? Why can't two siblings marry? What right does the state have to stop it? Old enough to bleed old enough to breed...what the hell is the purpose of laws setting an age limits? Can't legislate morality, so I have been told, then what is the purpose of marriage laws in the first place?

I think the slippery slope argument is quite right. What right does a gay person have to tell a person they can't marry their daughter?

First you have to prove that gay marriage "redefines marriage" for JUST ONE married heterosexual married couple.
JUST ONE.
Where is that married couple that immediately after a gay couple gets married has THEIR MARRIAGE "REDEFINED"?

Well I have been on the Earth a fairly long time and in all that time marriage has been between a man and a woman, nothing else. Thus it can be logically assumed that is the definitions. So let's say there is a question of that definition, let the people decide. In almost all cases the traditional definition of marriage has been upheld. That is the whole point of the OP, if we redefine marriage to include gays then by what right does a gay person have to say we limit marriage to those not related? To those who are underage? Of course the courts would probably rule them illegal but only do so by being hypocrites.