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

[FA_Q2]

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.

...

No they do not because laws against marrying and sexual acts with a minor hinge on CONSENT. They have nothing whatsoever to do with controlling marriage or relationships. Minors cannot give consent - PERIOD.
Please stop interjecting such asinine statements.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Already been addressed.

Are you going to bother to address the points already mentioned that make your statement irrelevant.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

List your reasons as to why siblings should not be allowed to marry.

By humanistic/secular standards, I don't have an argument (I'm sure others do and will chime in....)

Personally, I think it is revolting and wrong.
But I also feel that way about homosexuals.

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.

Personal revulsion is not a legal argument.

Correct.

The 'legal' argument, such as it is, against incestuous marriage hinges on the genetic consequences argument.

1. That separates it completely from any same sex marriage arguments and therefore demolishes any attempted analogies between the two.

2. The genetic argument itself is quite weak for many reasons

a. it is discriminatory because unrelated couples with transmissible genetic defects aren't banned from marriage
b. Incest marriages between couple who can't reproduce would logically be exempted from the ban. They aren't.
c. Some anti-incest laws involve non-biologically related siblings, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, thus ignoring the genetic argument altogether.

... like I said... opening doors....

If that were true, hetero marriages should be blamed because they started it.

 

[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!

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.

Where did you get that out of my post? Wishing you luck means "**** you"? Your translator needs adjusting.

Good luck if you believe there is no societal harm in allowing close familial or polygamist marriages, file your briefs.

 

[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.

Where did you get that out of my post? Wishing you luck means "**** you"? Your translator needs adjusting.

Good luck if you believe there is no societal harm in allowing close familial or polygamist marriages, file your briefs.

I get it from the general tone and dismissiveness that is all over your posts on this matter.
My 'translator' is working just fine.

 

[playtime]

That's why:

 

[ShootSpeeders]

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.

Hey einstein. Queer marriage is unhealthy too since it leads to more AIDS and hepititus. THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

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

I agree with that. People with kids are allowed to claim deductions for each kid and that should end. I've been complaining about that for decades.

 

[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!

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.

Where did you get that out of my post? Wishing you luck means "**** you"? Your translator needs adjusting.

Good luck if you believe there is no societal harm in allowing close familial or polygamist marriages, file your briefs.

I get it from the general tone and dismissiveness that is all over your posts on this matter.
My 'translator' is working just fine.

I'm sorry I wasn't enthusiastic enough for you, but the response still stands. If you believe there is no societal harm, file your brief. Good luck.

 

[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*****

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.

Show me where gays were considered a racial minority prior to the ruling that they were to be considered a minority. Since they fought for the right to marry on the platform of consenting adults then it stands to reason that the ruling applies to all mature willing companions. And by the very ruling you are using no mature willing companions should have to go to court to form the union of their choice. As his opening statement says...

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family......"

So quit attempting to deny other mature willing companions their rights by demanding they appear in court and admit they have the same rights as other mature willing companions who have been granted them.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

ROFLMNAO! Poor Gilligan... .

 

[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.

ROFLMNAO! Poor Gilligan... .

How are those state laws banning gay marriage working out for you?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Where did you get that out of my post? Wishing you luck means "**** you"? Your translator needs adjusting.

Good luck if you believe there is no societal harm in allowing close familial or polygamist marriages, file your briefs.

I get it from the general tone and dismissiveness that is all over your posts on this matter.
My 'translator' is working just fine.

I'm sorry I wasn't enthusiastic enough for you, but the response still stands. If you believe there is no societal harm, file your brief. Good luck.

What would be the point of filing a brief?

Relativism rejects the objectivity that is essential to the service of justice. The Supreme Legislature is not interested in justice.

As a result, justice must be found by means other than the judicial system... as is what always happens when cultures degenerate into subjectivism.

Understand: Relativism KILLS!

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Where did you get that out of my post? Wishing you luck means "**** you"? Your translator needs adjusting.

Good luck if you believe there is no societal harm in allowing close familial or polygamist marriages, file your briefs.

I get it from the general tone and dismissiveness that is all over your posts on this matter.
My 'translator' is working just fine.

I'm sorry I wasn't enthusiastic enough for you, but the response still stands. If you believe there is no societal harm, file your brief. Good luck.

What would be the point of filing a brief?

Relativism rejects the objectivity that is essential to the service of justice. The Supreme Legislature is not interested in justice.

As a result, justice must be found by means other than the judicial system... as is what always happens when cultures degenerate into subjectivism.

Understand: Relativism KILLS!

People have the funniest ways of coping with utter defeat.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

ROFLMNAO! Poor Gilligan... .

How are those state laws banning gay marriage working out for you?

Working out fine... Relativist have stripped the government of the means to serve justice and will soon be engulfed in unbridled civil war, which will subsequently result in the erasing of all sense of Left-think. From the ashes of which will rise a new culture, where not a single individual will have ever had the slightest notion to pursue someone of the same gender, or children or livestock... for sexual gratification.

Which simply means, Gilligan, that the new culture will be void of YOU and people like you. Meaning that people like you will not be welcomed here, your ideas not tolerated here and those who so much as admit they new OF YOU will be treated harshly, to extents far beyond what you would refer to as 'discrimination'.

The distinction between then and now is what is known as "PROGRESS"... wherein the culture progresses from a degenerative, unsustainable mindset, to a highly principled, thoroughly sustainable culture; wherein individual freedom is measured entirely upon one's means to bear the responsibilities that sustain such.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Where did you get that out of my post? Wishing you luck means "**** you"? Your translator needs adjusting.

Good luck if you believe there is no societal harm in allowing close familial or polygamist marriages, file your briefs.

I get it from the general tone and dismissiveness that is all over your posts on this matter.
My 'translator' is working just fine.

I'm sorry I wasn't enthusiastic enough for you, but the response still stands. If you believe there is no societal harm, file your brief. Good luck.

What would be the point of filing a brief?

Relativism rejects the objectivity that is essential to the service of justice. The Supreme Legislature is not interested in justice.

As a result, justice must be found by means other than the judicial system... as is what always happens when cultures degenerate into subjectivism.

Understand: Relativism KILLS!

People have the funniest ways of coping with utter defeat.

Not to worry little man, you have no need to cope... . Your end will be more of a 'On the run', thing.

And as always, your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[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.

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.

The queer mafia and their apologists keep saying the marriage has nothing to do with reproduction, so what do inbreeding or birth defects have to do with anything?

 

[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.

ROFLMNAO! Poor Gilligan... .

How are those state laws banning gay marriage working out for you?

Working out fine... Relativist have stripped the government of the means to serve justice and will soon be engulfed in unbridled civil war, which will subsequently result in the erasing of all sense of Left-think. From the ashes of which will rise a new culture, where not a single individual will have ever had the slightest notion to pursue someone of the same gender, or children or livestock... for sexual gratification.

Which simply means, Gilligan, that the new culture will be void of YOU and people like you. Meaning that people like you will not be welcomed here, your ideas not tolerated here and those who so much as admit they new OF YOU will be treated harshly, to extents far beyond what you would refer to as 'discrimination'.

The distinction between then and now is what is known as "PROGRESS"... wherein the culture progresses from a degenerative, unsustainable mindset, to a highly principled, thoroughly sustainable culture; wherein individual freedom is measured entirely upon one's means to bear the responsibilities that sustain such.

Who are you personally prepared to kill to get there?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

ROFLMNAO! Poor Gilligan... .

How are those state laws banning gay marriage working out for you?

Working out fine... Relativist have stripped the government of the means to serve justice and will soon be engulfed in unbridled civil war, which will subsequently result in the erasing of all sense of Left-think. From the ashes of which will rise a new culture, where not a single individual will have ever had the slightest notion to pursue someone of the same gender, or children or livestock... for sexual gratification.

Which simply means, Gilligan, that the new culture will be void of YOU and people like you. Meaning that people like you will not be welcomed here, your ideas not tolerated here and those who so much as admit they new OF YOU will be treated harshly, to extents far beyond what you would refer to as 'discrimination'.

The distinction between then and now is what is known as "PROGRESS"... wherein the culture progresses from a degenerative, unsustainable mindset, to a highly principled, thoroughly sustainable culture; wherein individual freedom is measured entirely upon one's means to bear the responsibilities that sustain such.

Who are you personally prepared to kill to get there?

More eager than prepared, but I'm something well beyond prepared, so... yeah.

I've done everything within my power in trying to get you idiots to turn from your destructive ways... so my conscience is clear. As far as I am concerned, the Ideological leftist is the rough equivalent of a cockroach and I've got my roach stompin' boots all scotch-guarded and ready to start STOMPIN'... .

So all I'm waiting on is for you idiots to do whatever it is you're going to do... to crank it off. And THAT will be the last chance you have to make a decision on how things go... from that moment on.

So whenever you're ready to jump... get on with it, froggy. 'Cause I'm ready and then some.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

If you want to make it so any two people can marry I won't fight you. I see the reasons we don't allow it but it wouldn't bug me too much if anyone could enter into the arrangement called marriage. Good luck.