NY State blesses ‘incest’ marriage between uncle, niece

[Silhouette]

Do you really believe that "liberals" and homosexuals are to blame for Alabama allowing first cousins to marry?

And by the way- marriage between an Uncle and a Niece is still illegal in NY

The judges declared that while marriages between uncles and nieces or aunts and nephews were expressly forbidden, there was no such prohibition on half-uncles and half-nieces becoming husband and wife. Like first cousins, those in such unions will share an average of around one-eighth of the same DNA.

Why are judges suddenly discussing how closely one is related by blood as a disqualifier? I thought people could adopt? I'd say if one of the people at least agrees to have a tubal ligation or a vasectomy, who is a judge to tell these people they cannot be married? What about polygamists who aren't related? Why are their 'civil rights' being trampled?

 

[Silhouette]

There is right now, no legal basis for denying ANY consenting adult the "right" to marry. Favoring just some people who identify themselves by their sexual behaviors as "LGBTs" is arbitrary, unequal and unfair. One could easily argue it is unconstitutional.

 

[Syriusly]

There is right now, no legal basis for denying ANY consenting adult the "right" to marry. .

Of course there is.

That is the reason why there was a court case- as the judge pointed out- if these two people had been a full uncle and niece in NY, their marriage would have been illegal.

 

[Silhouette]

There is right now, no legal basis for denying ANY consenting adult the "right" to marry. .

Of course there is.
That is the reason why there was a court case- as the judge pointed out- if these two people had been a full uncle and niece in NY, their marriage would have been illegal.

Do you know why he said that? Would you like me to quote his exact reasoning for saying that incest is "illegal"?

Here, to jog your memory, it was a statement that incest marraige would be repugnant to the majority. THAT was his sole reasoning.

Said the judge:

"parent-child and brother-sister marriages . . . are grounded in the almost universal horror with which such marriages are viewed . . . there is no comparably strong objection to uncle-niece marriages"

So "universal horror of the majority" or more generically, "universal rejection by the majority" is legal grounds to deny a certain type of marriage.

Now correct me if I'm wrong but....doesn't that mean that Prop 8 is valid again?

 

[Noomi]

The state’s highest court has toppled a cultural taboo — legalizing a degree of incest, at least between an uncle and niece — in a unanimous ruling.

While the laws against “parent-child and brother-sister marriages . . . are grounded in the almost universal horror with which such marriages are viewed . . . there is no comparably strong objection to uncle-niece marriages,” Tuesday’s ruling reads.

Judge Robert Smith of the Court of Appeals wrote that such unions were lawful in New York until 1893 and Rhode Island allows them.
NY State blesses incest 8217 marriage between uncle niece New York Post
----------------------------

Yeah, remember when we said once we start to redefine marriage that all of the perverts (liberals) will come out of the wood work and start to chant for their rights to marry?

Polygamy. bestiality, and yes incest marriages.

Well, here they are, right on que.

Aaaaand there are the liberals, supporting it.

As long as they are consenting adults, where is the issue?

 

[Silhouette]

As long as they are consenting adults, where is the issue?

Don't often agree with Noomi, but this is one of those times. If one sexuality is repugnant to the majority, and can tell it what's what, then any other sexuality repugnant to the majority has the exact same rights to dictate to the majority.

Cannot play favorites...

 

[Syriusly]

[
Now correct me if I'm wrong but....doesn't that mean that Prop 8 is valid again?

As with anytime you refer to Prop 8- yes you are wrong again.

 

[Syriusly]

As long as they are consenting adults, where is the issue?

Don't often agree with Noomi, but this is one of those times. If one sexuality is repugnant to the majority, and can tell it what's what, then any other sexuality repugnant to the majority has the exact same rights to dictate to the majority.

Or we can go with the actual reasons why incest is different than same gender marriage.

As the Court said in Wisconsin's same gender marriage case:


Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.

 

[Silhouette]

As the Court said in Wisconsin's same gender marriage case:

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.

LGBT marriage doesn't raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net?

1. LGBT child-abuse: pictures at the bottom of the page, + 0.00% of the culture's membership coming out to denounce pride parades in front of kids.

2. LGBT child exploitation: The cultures veneration of Harvey Milk as their sexuality icon. Harvey Milk's biography states that he "always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems" (page 180). Again 0.00% denouncement publicly of this icon. Milk also was sodomizing a boy he was saying he was a guardian/father figure to.

3. LGBT threats: Lawsuits if anyone does not cow down to every single imposition of this cult's values imposed on secular and religious society.

 

[Syriusly]

As the Court said in Wisconsin's same gender marriage case:

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.

LGBT marriage doesn't raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net?

1. LGBT child-abuse: pictures at the bottom of the page, + 0.00% of the culture's membership coming out to denounce pride parades in front of kids.

The courts actually rely upon more than your imagination. Now here are some photos of the people you hate- the people you despise so much that you lie about them.

In an era before cell phone cameras and Instagram, their beautiful photographs document another time. They provide a very private look into the lives of two people, both successful and gorgeous, but unable to live together as partners. Their relationship began at a party in 1962, a time when gay people were largely regarded as criminals and even diagnosed as mentally ill. At one point in her life, Thea was expelled from Sarah Lawrence College when she was caught by a security guard kissing an older woman. Yet despite the oppression and homophobia of the era, the two forged an incredibly rich companionship, traveling the world, hosting parties in the Hamptons with a close circle of friends and cultivating their love for one another.

After dating for a short time, Spyer proposed to Windsor in 1967; they finally married, 40 years later, in Canada in 2007. Spyer’s health slowly deteriorated over the years, and she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis at age 45, a disease that didn’t stop the couple from dancing — even when Spyer was stricken to a wheelchair.



Read more: Endless Love: Inside the Photo Albums of Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer - LightBox Endless Love Inside the Photo Albums of Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer - LightBox

 

[Silhouette]

The courts actually rely upon more than your imagination. Now here are some photos of the people you hate- the people you despise so much that you lie about them.

I don't hate Windsor or her dyke friend. I just don't think they have a right to force states to incentivize a "marriage" where 100% of the time one of the biological parents is missing; for the sake of children. Your pretty pictures do paint a lovely scene. However there are a couple things missing from the equation in those pictures:

1. The mental well being of a boy in a home such as theirs, his self image, his perception of his importance to the world extrapolated by the fact that he is in an institutionalized situation where his own gender isn't represented.

2. The lack of either Windsor or her girlfriend denouncing gay pride parades, or the veneration of Harvey Milk; both of which claim to represent them at large, "LGBT pride" [if they are some sort of legal cohesive unit or "race" as they claim to be]. Gay pride parades involve regular performances of lewd sex acts where children are invited to attend and participate. Harvey Milk was sodomizing a minor boy while officiating as his guardian. And many other young teen boys on drugs. Did Edie Windsor ever make a public statement about how that is inappropriate to represent "the LGBT race" (of which she uses membership to win court cases)?

The gay marriage debate isn't about two lovely dykes snuggling on camera in a park setting over the years. It's about CHILDREN first and adults second.

Always in that order. And we have some very disturbing red flags in ignoring the civil rights of children, exploitation and exposure-abuse from the LGBT legally-cohesive unit group..

 

[Syriusly]

The courts actually rely upon more than your imagination. Now here are some photos of the people you hate- the people you despise so much that you lie about them.

I don't hate Windsor or her dyke friend. I just don't think they have a right to force states to incentivize a "marriage" where 100% of the time one of the biological parents is missing; for the sake of children. Your pretty pictures do paint a lovely scene. However there are a couple things missing from the equation in those pictures:

Sure you hate them- you hate them so much that you would say we must treat them different.

Like many couples- they never had any children. Your procreation argument is as meaningless with them, as it would have been for George and Martha Washington.


Once again- here is a couple together over 40 years- that you consider to be a 'cult'

Now here are some photos of the people you hate- the people you despise so much that you lie about them.

In an era before cell phone cameras and Instagram, their beautiful photographs document another time. They provide a very private look into the lives of two people, both successful and gorgeous, but unable to live together as partners. Their relationship began at a party in 1962, a time when gay people were largely regarded as criminals and even diagnosed as mentally ill. At one point in her life, Thea was expelled from Sarah Lawrence College when she was caught by a security guard kissing an older woman. Yet despite the oppression and homophobia of the era, the two forged an incredibly rich companionship, traveling the world, hosting parties in the Hamptons with a close circle of friends and cultivating their love for one another.

After dating for a short time, Spyer proposed to Windsor in 1967; they finally married, 40 years later, in Canada in 2007. Spyer’s health slowly deteriorated over the years, and she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis at age 45, a disease that didn’t stop the couple from dancing — even when Spyer was stricken to a wheelchair.

 

[Silhouette]

Sure you hate them- you hate them so much that you would say we must treat them different...

So your "logical deduction" to define "hate" is "someone saying we must treat another person differently". ie; if someone is saying they want another person treated differently from themselves, for any reason whatsoever, that = "hate".

With me so far?

Children are different from me. I'm an adult. I'm sophisticated enough to see and know many things on a much deeper and nuanced level than children. As such, I insist they are treated differently. Yet I do not hate them.

Oops! There goes your premise.

Gay people suffer from uncontrollable compulsions in deviant sex acts. They are different in that they believe the anus is a vagina. This is false thinking. So I regard them as different from myself. I realize that many of them were molested/imprinted sexually wrongly as children. Yet I do not hate them. I simply regard their cohesive culture as different, and their insistence [not mine] on rigidly adhering to that culture's value system as labeling themselves as different. The only remedy to alter that would be to change society in a whole to become like them; and then they wouldn't be different. Hence the reason they're after marriage and make no small use of the courts to force everyone to think and behave just like them; and to mandate teaching children that their behaviors "aren't different"...

And speaking of children, wouldn't one also define hate as putting someone in a situation that you could easily predict would be toxic or harmful to them from the ongoing and stark red flags associated with that situation? Wouldn't say, putting a CHILD in that situation be one of the most vile acts you could do, the most manifest form of hate imaginable?

And yet you insist we should release children to the cohesive legal-unit/race LGBT:

 

[Czernobog]

The state’s highest court has toppled a cultural taboo — legalizing a degree of incest, at least between an uncle and niece — in a unanimous ruling.

While the laws against “parent-child and brother-sister marriages . . . are grounded in the almost universal horror with which such marriages are viewed . . . there is no comparably strong objection to uncle-niece marriages,” Tuesday’s ruling reads.

Judge Robert Smith of the Court of Appeals wrote that such unions were lawful in New York until 1893 and Rhode Island allows them.
NY State blesses incest 8217 marriage between uncle niece New York Post
----------------------------

Yeah, remember when we said once we start to redefine marriage that all of the perverts (liberals) will come out of the wood work and start to chant for their rights to marry?

Polygamy. bestiality, and yes incest marriages.

Well, here they are, right on que.

Aaaaand there are the liberals, supporting it.

 

[Silhouette]

The judge's use of the phrase "incest is a horror to the majority; and as such is illegal and can be predicted to be harmful to children as examples have shown us" [paraphrased] is going to be VERY damaging to the LGBT legal argument. After all, LGBT's insist that the reason they should have their relationships federally protected as a civil right is that they say the majority cannot call them "horrible" and dictate to them how laws will be based on that different perception and POV.

One man's horror is another man's paradise. How do you sift them out when the majority no longer gets to decide on them?

 

[Czernobog]

The state’s highest court has toppled a cultural taboo — legalizing a degree of incest, at least between an uncle and niece — in a unanimous ruling.

While the laws against “parent-child and brother-sister marriages . . . are grounded in the almost universal horror with which such marriages are viewed . . . there is no comparably strong objection to uncle-niece marriages,” Tuesday’s ruling reads.

Judge Robert Smith of the Court of Appeals wrote that such unions were lawful in New York until 1893 and Rhode Island allows them.
NY State blesses incest 8217 marriage between uncle niece New York Post
----------------------------

Yeah, remember when we said once we start to redefine marriage that all of the perverts (liberals) will come out of the wood work and start to chant for their rights to marry?

Polygamy. bestiality, and yes incest marriages.

Well, here they are, right on que.

Aaaaand there are the liberals, supporting it.

Couple of things...

First, I think it ironic that you would mention "bestiality". You do realise that bestiality is legal in most states, right? In fact, bestiality is already legal in every single state that still bans same sex marriage. So, I think that suggesting that same sex marriage will "lead" to bestiality may be a late.

Second, there are those of us who have always said that we have no problem with polygamy, or incestuous marriage. Of course, it looks like we don't have to "fight" for the rights of Uncle/hubbies. Looks like their right to marry is already recognised.

 

[Syriusly]

Sure you hate them- you hate them so much that you would say we must treat them different...

So your "logical deduction" to define "hate" is "someone saying we must treat another person differently". ie; if someone is saying they want another person treated differently from themselves, for any reason whatsoever, that = "hate".

No my logical deduction is that hate homosexuals- this is from seeing your constant diatribes against homosexuals, filled full of lies and slander and innuendo.

My logical deduction is that your hatred of homosexuals leads you to promote any discrimination against homosexuals that will harm homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

The judge's use of the phrase "incest is a horror to the majority; and as such is illegal and can be predicted to be harmful to children as examples have shown us" [paraphrased] is going to be VERY damaging to the LGBT legal argument.

The only consolation I have about your posts is that you NEVER get a legal reasoning correct- so when you offer your bat guano interpretations, i am confident that no rational person will ever consider them.

Once again:

As the Court said in Wisconsin's same gender marriage case:


Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.

 

[Iceweasel]

Once again:

As the Court said in Wisconsin's same gender marriage case:

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.

Raising concerns isn't a legal reason to deny something. Legalizing pot would raise concerns. many things raise concerns. There's no more reason to assume polygamy might become abusive than any other marriage. He or she was making a political decision and forcing it onto the masses.

 

[Theowl32]

Liberals are so pathetic.