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

[Seawytch]

So it wasn't Christians that passed all the anti gay marriage laws or who are trying to discriminate against gay couples in the issuing of marriage licenses?

Marriage laws weren't anti-gay. They were normal. You've made it clear that concept is out of your reach. It's the way it's been forever, regardless of where and you think it's all a coincidence.

They were. They were based solely on animus...which is why they were struck down...just like prohibitions on interracial marriage.

 

[Seawytch]

I don't hate anyone, however - I feel nothing but love and compassion for them - I can feel that way and still not agree with their lifestyle however, contrary to popular belief.

And gays don't give two shits what you believe...as long as you're not trying to legislate your beliefs. I think extremist religious people are vile and repulsive...but I would never try to deny them the legal right to marry.

oh blah blah... Christians are trying to do no such thing... you secularists are having your way in the world yet you still want to cry like little infants.... sheesh......

So it wasn't Christians that passed all the anti gay marriage laws or who are trying to discriminate against gay couples in the issuing of marriage licenses? You might want to check your facts again instead of "blah, blah, blahing"...which is obviously how you respond when you can't counter what I said.

Believe any fairy tale you want, just don't pass laws based on them.

What I am saying is "give them an inch they take a mile" - or more accurately, no matter what is given it's never good enough - people like you will not be happy until all Christians are forced to shut up and keep quiet.

Who is "them", the American people?

I don't want you to keep quiet, I simply don't want you passing laws based on your religious beliefs...yours or any religion.

Gay marriage has been legal in some countries for over two decades. Can you find your slippery slope in any of them?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

There's no constitutional necessity in the bolded text, above.

 

[sealybobo]

"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.

Yea but we've been telling you for years that gays should be getting the same benefits as straight couples. We should have let gays marry 100 years ago but good luck with those ignorant ***** back then. Just look at how even Obama in 2007 said that marriage was between 1 man and 1 woman. Times they are a changing.

But even though he said it was for 1 man and 1 woman, everyone knew that didn't mean our sister you creep. LOL.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

It's pretty simple. Rights are limited. If a right harms other people then it's not protected.

We know that children produced by siblings can have deformities, and it would be unfair for any child to be produced like this.

Also they're already related. They don't need a marriage to be related to each other.

Wrong. The criteria isn't whether it harms other people. For instance, I could claim that the CEO of some company is incompetent. That may harm him, but I have the right to voice my opinion.

All rights srem from the initiation of force principle. If I'm or initiating force against you, I'm not violating your rightd, whether what I do harms you or not.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[sealybobo]

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.

If the relationship is a close one or it is practiced repeatedly, inbreeding can increase the chances of offspring being affected by recessive or deleterious traits. This generally leads to a decreased fitness of a population, which is called inbreeding depression. Deleterious alleles causing inbreeding depression can subsequently be removed through culling, which is also known as genetic purging.

We also don't let siblings marry because they are just doing it to take advantage of social security or a pension.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

If the relationship is a close one or it is practiced repeatedly, inbreeding can increase the chances of offspring being affected by recessive or deleterious traits.

So....?
Homosexuals can't reproduce with their spouse.

We also don't let siblings marry because they are just doing it to take advantage of social security or a pension.

Who is the state to judge the reason behind a marriage?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

"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!

Shouldn't need to go to court. The precedent was set when the 14th Amendment and Civil Rights Act enabled all minorities to enjoy the same benefits. Since we are now defining marriage as a relationship that consenting adults should be allowed to participate in then it applies to ALL mature willing companions. Otherwise the courts system is being discriminatory and bigoted and opens the United States government to a lawsuit from any mature willing companions who desire to form a marriage group.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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.

If the relationship is a close one or it is practiced repeatedly, inbreeding can increase the chances of offspring being affected by recessive or deleterious traits. This generally leads to a decreased fitness of a population, which is called inbreeding depression. Deleterious alleles causing inbreeding depression can subsequently be removed through culling, which is also known as genetic purging.

Then you're for disallowing people who have known genetic defects such as Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, inheritable diabetes, and the list goes on... from marrying also?

We also don't let siblings marry because they are just doing it to take advantage of social security or a pension.

As I recall that was one of the reasons the SSM crowd used to justify why they should be allowed marriage rights.

What's good for the goose should be good enough for the gander.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Bob Blaylock]

And gays don't give two shits what you believe...as long as you're not trying to legislate your beliefs.

Then why are there so many high-profile incidents of homosexual perverts using the force of law to compel decent people to take part in their sick mockeries of weddings?

 

[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!

Shouldn't need to go to court. The precedent was set when the 14th Amendment and Civil Rights Act enabled all minorities to enjoy the same benefits. Since we are now defining marriage as a relationship that consenting adults should be allowed to participate in then it applies to ALL mature willing companions. Otherwise the courts system is being discriminatory and bigoted and opens the United States government to a lawsuit from any mature willing companions who desire to form a marriage group.

*****CHUCKLE*****

By that "logic" (and I use the term lightly), the precedent was set in Loving and gays shouldn't have had to go to court.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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

snopes.com: Hamas Mass Wedding for 450 Little Girls

Although the photographs and video footage did originate with the July 2009 mass wedding event, and they do show pre-pubescent girls dressed in clothing resembling bridal garb holding hands with older men, the young girls in these pictures were not being married off to adult males; they were relatives of the brides and grooms (typically nieces and cousins ranging in age from three to eight years old) who were merely ancillary participants in the ceremony, performing a function similar to that of flower girls in western-style weddings.​

 

[sealybobo]

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.

If the relationship is a close one or it is practiced repeatedly, inbreeding can increase the chances of offspring being affected by recessive or deleterious traits. This generally leads to a decreased fitness of a population, which is called inbreeding depression. Deleterious alleles causing inbreeding depression can subsequently be removed through culling, which is also known as genetic purging.

Then you're for disallowing people who have known genetic defects such as Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, inheritable diabetes, and the list goes on... from marrying also?

We also don't let siblings marry because they are just doing it to take advantage of social security or a pension.

As I recall that was one of the reasons the SSM crowd used to justify why they should be allowed marriage rights.

What's good for the goose should be good enough for the gander.

*****CHUCKLE*****

I think we should late term abort anyone with those diseases.

 

[Seawytch]

And gays don't give two shits what you believe...as long as you're not trying to legislate your beliefs.

Then why are there so many high-profile incidents of homosexual perverts using the force of law to compel decent people to take part in their sick mockeries of weddings?

That has nothing to do with what I said. Nobody is legislating their beliefs with PA laws.

You're free to try to get those changed too...but you should go after the FEDERAL law that protects Christians from discrimination in all 50 states instead of LOCAL STATE laws that protect gays.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And gays don't give two shits what you believe...as long as you're not trying to legislate your beliefs.

Then why are there so many high-profile incidents of homosexual perverts using the force of law to compel decent people to take part in their sick mockeries of weddings?

There aren't.

 

[FA_Q2]

Anyway, as far as the question in the OP is concerned, I don't have a problem with two siblings getting married as long as they are consenting adults.

people who understand how genetics works also understand why allowing close family members to marry is a bad idea.

Actually, we understand why close family members should not procreate but the fact is that marriage is not bound to the idea of procreation. That argument has been eliminated already.

Further, close familial relationships have a FAR less chance of passing on genetic defects than a host of other genetic disorders that do not bar one from getting married. Therefore, that argument is also moot unless we actually wish to start making marriage a privilege that can be taken away if progeny have a high chance of genetic disorders.

That would have consequences for the gay marriage argument though.

In short, your observation that there are reasons that family members should not procreate are utterly irrelevant to the marriage argument (and the RIGHT to access those laws).

 

[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.

It's pretty simple. Rights are limited. If a right harms other people then it's not protected.

We know that children produced by siblings can have deformities, and it would be unfair for any child to be produced like this.

Also they're already related. They don't need a marriage to be related to each other.

Wrong. The criteria isn't whether it harms other people. For instance, I could claim that the CEO of some company is incompetent. That may harm him, but I have the right to voice my opinion.

All rights srem from the initiation of force principle. If I'm or initiating force against you, I'm not violating your rightd, whether what I do harms you or not.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

English please.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Giving you massive tax breaks because you have children is special treatment.

 

[FA_Q2]

"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!

And here is the I got mine so **** you that the left is always chortling about.

No, you do not and never have cared about the concept of equal protection. All you seem to have given a shit about was how it affected you.

God forbid anyone here actually have any principals.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yep. Lots of incest in the bible. Not mention polygamy.

If the thumpers are going to try to use sharia law, they have to accept that others will to.

Seriously for a moment. This is a serious question to Christians. What does the bible say about ******* your sister?

Where in a marriage contract does it say you have to have sex with your partner in marriage?

*****CHUCKLE*****

You people who are anti gay marriage aren't convincing any of us liberals to support sibling marriage. Even we agree that's gross.

Why?

Now you only support equal access to rights when it is not gross to you?

And yet I bet you find that those on the right are bigots.

Maybe any two consenting adults should be allowed. You are winning me over.

I could marry my father and get 85% of his Ford pension. I'm in!

Or he could do the exact same thing with another 18 year old tart.

There is no difference at all yet one is illegal. If marriage were not a right then there would not be an issue - the state would be free to define it as it seen fit. It is, however, a right and that necessitates that it is protected.