If homos have a constitutional right to marry, why don't siblings.??

[ShootSpeeders]

That's the question the queers can't answer. The law says a man can live with his sister but cannot marry her and that's the same way it always has been with queers.

Fact is there is nothing in the constitution about marriage which means it''s entirely a state issue and the federal courts need to stay out of it.

 

[bodecea]

If heteros have a constitutional right to marry, why don't siblings? Your example is a hetero example. So...why not?

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's the question the queers can't answer. The law says a man can live with his sister but cannot marry her and that's the same way it always has been with queers.

Fact is there is nothing in the constitution about marriage which means it''s entirely a state issue and the federal courts need to stay out of it.

Discrimination is not a state issue.

 

[Zander]

Sure,why not. Children from consanguineous partnerings only have twice the rate of genetic disorders.....we could always use more problems!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

If siblings have a constitutional right to marry, they had it before the ruling on same sex marriage.

 

[rightwinger]

Homosexuality is not illegal...incest is

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The law says a man can live with his sister but cannot marry her and that's the same way it always has been with queers.

Any two unmarried adults should able to marry should be able to marry. Better now?

 

[Nosmo King]

The marriage contract establishes a next of kin relationship where no previous relationship exists.

Yet another inept straw man argument sent forth by the ignoranti.

 

[Papageorgio]

Homosexuality is not illegal...incest is

Homosexuality used to be illegal in many states.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"If homos have a constitutional right to marry, why don't siblings.??"

Because marriage is a union between two consenting, adult, and equal partners not related to each other in a relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Given the return of this and similar moronic threads, clearly the Obergefell sitzkrieg is over.

 

[Carla_Danger]

That's the question the queers can't answer. The law says a man can live with his sister but cannot marry her and that's the same way it always has been with queers.

Fact is there is nothing in the constitution about marriage which means it''s entirely a state issue and the federal courts need to stay out of it.

 

[Syriusly]

That's the question the queers can't answer. The law says a man can live with his sister but cannot marry her and that's the same way it always has been with queers.

Fact is there is nothing in the constitution about marriage which means it''s entirely a state issue and the federal courts need to stay out of it.

LOL you have brought this up over and over.

Your inability to understand is not everyone else's problem.

Fact is that you don't have a clue what the Supreme Court ruled- and are unlikely to ever understand why.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Sure,why not. Children from consanguineous partnerings only have twice the rate of genetic disorders.....we could always use more problems!!

So it's a health issue with you? So what about the queers and their AIDS and hepatitis.?

 

[Freewill]

Try it. Go down to the court house and ask for a marriage licence for you and your sister. If refused then start through the process. There is absolutely nothing I see in the law, now, the would bar you from marring your sister. So go for it.

Sex isn't a problem because as I understand it the whole reason that gays wanted to marry is for economic reasons. I had a friend that had to find me out and tell me about their same sex marriage. I think because they were genuinely happy put it could have been just in my face type of thing.

I asked why in the hell did they want to get into all of that. I was given exactly the same BS reasons I hear on this board, but not once did they say they wanted to marry the other person because they loved them, not once.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
LOL you have brought this up over and over.
Your inability to understand is not everyone else's problem.
Fact is that you don't have a clue what the Supreme Court ruled- and are unlikely to ever understand why.

The board notes you never addressed the issue and just called me stupid. Thanks for admitting you have no argument.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Sex isn't a problem because as I understand it the whole reason that gays wanted to marry is for economic reasons..

That's not it. They want an easier time adopting kids to molest. THINK

 

[Freewill]

Sex isn't a problem because as I understand it the whole reason that gays wanted to marry is for economic reasons..

That's not it. They want an easier time adopting kids to molest. THINK

I don't think that is true, but they do seem to be into seeking acceptance. Might be a Father issue.

 

[mdk]

Wouldn't the OP be better served filing lawsuits and pushing his representatives to make this come to pass? That takes work though and whining on the web is so much easier.

 

[Freewill]

Wouldn't the OP be better served filing lawsuits and pushing his representatives to make this come to pass? That takes work though and whining on the web is so much easier.

Why bother with the legislature, much easier to have 5 old men and women make law.

 

[Zander]

Sure,why not. Children from consanguineous partnerings only have twice the rate of genetic disorders.....we could always use more problems!!

So it's a health issue with you? So what about the queers and their AIDS and hepatitis.?

Not really - I just wanted to use that photo of the inbred hillbilllies!!

I have no objections to faggot marriage, incestuous marriages. polygamous marriages, or regular marriages. . AFAIC people should be free to marry chickens, goats and sheep if they want to. Get government out of the business of marriage. PERIOD.