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

[Obiwan]

The pedophiles will be the next ones to make a big move for acceptance, and that makes the muslims very happy.

 

[Iceweasel]

There is no ban on 'redefinition'. That word is meaningless. There is absolutely no merit to the argument that there is something inherently wrong with ever 'redefining' anything. It's an absurd argument.

So if only a man and a woman not too closely related can marry it isn't redefining marriage to allow same genders? f course it is. What argument do you have against two male 2nd cousins if 2nd opposite sexed cousins can't marry? Because it wouldn't mimic heterosexual marriage enough?

 

[007]

The pedophiles will be the next ones to make a big move for acceptance, and that makes the muslims very happy.

People get outraged about this (as they should) yet there is a least 1 person on this board that lobbies for that and actually thinks they have a good argument...

They'll be coming out of the woodwork...............

The peds have watched the homo mafia go to work over the years and force their disgusting *** shit down everyone's throat, so the peds now have an open door and a game plan, all thanks to the queers.

 

[Bonzi]

The pedophiles will be the next ones to make a big move for acceptance, and that makes the muslims very happy.

People get outraged about this (as they should) yet there is a least 1 person on this board that lobbies for that and actually thinks they have a good argument...

They'll be coming out of the woodwork...............

The peds have watched the homo mafia go to work over the years and force their disgusting *** shit down everyone's throat, so the peds now have an open door and a game plan, all thanks to the queers.

.. some people don't like to mince their words....

 

[007]

The pedophiles will be the next ones to make a big move for acceptance, and that makes the muslims very happy.

People get outraged about this (as they should) yet there is a least 1 person on this board that lobbies for that and actually thinks they have a good argument...

They'll be coming out of the woodwork...............

The peds have watched the homo mafia go to work over the years and force their disgusting *** shit down everyone's throat, so the peds now have an open door and a game plan, all thanks to the queers.

.. some people don't like to mince their words....

I am NOT politically correct, and a big reason why I like Trump... he isn't either.

I loved it when he said, "I don't have time to be politically correct, the country doesn't have time to be politically correct." He's right, political correctness is a cancer on the truth created by the left.

 

[NYcarbineer]

But siblings can say the same thing. You don't understand what this thread is about.

You don't understand the role of SCOTUS.

SCOTUS are judges not legislators. And they're not even consistent legislators. If they say queer marriage must be allowed then they have to say the same of sibling marriage. THINK

What forced them to say same sex marriage had to be legal?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
If a state offers a service and benefits to hetero couples got to give them to gays.
.

But siblings can say the same thing. You don't understand what this thread is about.

A man/woman sibling marriage more closely resembles a non sibling man/woman marriage than it does a gay marriage.

What was stopping siblings from getting their right to marry BEFORE gay marriages?

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Why is plural marriage still illegal?

Damned homos are keeping Mormons from their civil rights to marry.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is no ban on 'redefinition'. That word is meaningless. There is absolutely no merit to the argument that there is something inherently wrong with ever 'redefining' anything. It's an absurd argument.

So if only a man and a woman not too closely related can marry it isn't redefining marriage to allow same genders? f course it is. What argument do you have against two male 2nd cousins if 2nd opposite sexed cousins can't marry? Because it wouldn't mimic heterosexual marriage enough?

Opposing 'redefinition' is not a magic bullet.

Are you aware that when the founders wrote the Constitution and got it ratified they effectively redefined how a national government should function?

 

[Iceweasel]

There is no ban on 'redefinition'. That word is meaningless. There is absolutely no merit to the argument that there is something inherently wrong with ever 'redefining' anything. It's an absurd argument.

So if only a man and a woman not too closely related can marry it isn't redefining marriage to allow same genders? f course it is. What argument do you have against two male 2nd cousins if 2nd opposite sexed cousins can't marry? Because it wouldn't mimic heterosexual marriage enough?

Opposing 'redefinition' is not a magic bullet.

Are you aware that when the founders wrote the Constitution and got it ratified they effectively redefined how a national government should function?

Uhm no. They defined how they wanted this one run. They didn't have a definition before the US was a country so there was no redefinition. And they didn't bother with defining marriage, 1st, 2nd cousins, whatever. That was up to the states. There's no reason for the feds to get involved if it can be handled by the state. In inter-racial marriage bans, the state governments were treating races differently so it was unconstitutional.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The pedophiles will be the next ones to make a big move for acceptance, and that makes the muslims very happy.

Not only acceptance but also affirmative action. Everybody wants special treatment. Pretty soon businesses will be required to hire a certain number of child molesters. Even at schools - in fact esp at schools.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is no ban on 'redefinition'. That word is meaningless. There is absolutely no merit to the argument that there is something inherently wrong with ever 'redefining' anything. It's an absurd argument.

So if only a man and a woman not too closely related can marry it isn't redefining marriage to allow same genders? f course it is. What argument do you have against two male 2nd cousins if 2nd opposite sexed cousins can't marry? Because it wouldn't mimic heterosexual marriage enough?

Opposing 'redefinition' is not a magic bullet.

Are you aware that when the founders wrote the Constitution and got it ratified they effectively redefined how a national government should function?

Uhm no. They defined how they wanted this one run. They didn't have a definition before the US was a country so there was no redefinition. And they didn't bother with defining marriage, 1st, 2nd cousins, whatever. That was up to the states. There's no reason for the feds to get involved if it can be handled by the state. In inter-racial marriage bans, the state governments were treating races differently so it was unconstitutional.

The monarchy in England was the previous definition. A state church was the previous definition. The divine rights of the King was the previous definition.

You're aware of the American Revolution happening, right?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Then laws and rulings that lead to the 14th Amendment and Civil Rights Act should have only applied to the blacks if you desire to take that position. Which means that the other minority groups should have taken their cases up to the courts also. This didn't happen.

Therefore the court ruling should apply to all mature willing companions who wish to form a marriage group since the case argued by the SSM crowd was that they were mature companions seeking the same rights as others.
.

The court decided it would apply to everyone and save us all the time and trouble of some **** stain like yourself coming here and making such an idiotic claim in an attempt to hold on to some inalienable right to discriminate.

If that's how you feel then the right to marry should apply to all mature willing companions to save us all the time and trouble of some **** stain like yourself coming here and making an idiotic claim in an attempt to hold some inalienable right to discriminate.

See how that works?

*****CHUCKLE******

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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?

Not really, you sound like your drunk....

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

"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.

Oh, so you do recognize that we have a right to define marriage and that it isn't anything we want it to be.

Duly noted.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"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.

Oh, so you do recognize that we have a right to define marriage and that it isn't anything we want it to be.

Duly noted.

Well, more precisely, you HAD your chance.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Not really, you sound like your drunk....

His drunk what?

 

[Iceweasel]

There is no ban on 'redefinition'. That word is meaningless. There is absolutely no merit to the argument that there is something inherently wrong with ever 'redefining' anything. It's an absurd argument.

So if only a man and a woman not too closely related can marry it isn't redefining marriage to allow same genders? f course it is. What argument do you have against two male 2nd cousins if 2nd opposite sexed cousins can't marry? Because it wouldn't mimic heterosexual marriage enough?

Opposing 'redefinition' is not a magic bullet.

Are you aware that when the founders wrote the Constitution and got it ratified they effectively redefined how a national government should function?

Uhm no. They defined how they wanted this one run. They didn't have a definition before the US was a country so there was no redefinition. And they didn't bother with defining marriage, 1st, 2nd cousins, whatever. That was up to the states. There's no reason for the feds to get involved if it can be handled by the state. In inter-racial marriage bans, the state governments were treating races differently so it was unconstitutional.

The monarchy in England was the previous definition. A state church was the previous definition. The divine rights of the King was the previous definition.

You're aware of the American Revolution happening, right?

The US wasn't a country before it was a country. We were part of England and lived by their rules. We didn't create new rules for the colonies, we became independent.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is no ban on 'redefinition'. That word is meaningless. There is absolutely no merit to the argument that there is something inherently wrong with ever 'redefining' anything. It's an absurd argument.

So if only a man and a woman not too closely related can marry it isn't redefining marriage to allow same genders? f course it is. What argument do you have against two male 2nd cousins if 2nd opposite sexed cousins can't marry? Because it wouldn't mimic heterosexual marriage enough?

Opposing 'redefinition' is not a magic bullet.

Are you aware that when the founders wrote the Constitution and got it ratified they effectively redefined how a national government should function?

Uhm no. They defined how they wanted this one run. They didn't have a definition before the US was a country so there was no redefinition. And they didn't bother with defining marriage, 1st, 2nd cousins, whatever. That was up to the states. There's no reason for the feds to get involved if it can be handled by the state. In inter-racial marriage bans, the state governments were treating races differently so it was unconstitutional.

The monarchy in England was the previous definition. A state church was the previous definition. The divine rights of the King was the previous definition.

You're aware of the American Revolution happening, right?

The US wasn't a country before it was a country. We were part of England and lived by their rules. We didn't create new rules for the colonies, we became independent.

So what? That redefined the relationship between colonies and the mother country.

 

[Seawytch]

"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.

Oh, so you do recognize that we have a right to define marriage and that it isn't anything we want it to be.

Duly noted.

Of course we do.

If you feel there is no societal harm in allowing close familial or polygamist marriages, you can do EXACTLY like interracial couples did and petition the court.

Best of luck!