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

[Votto]

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?

So where are all of the human rights activists who are seeking to secure the rights of siblings and polygamists?

That's right, they don't give a damn.

The whole notion that a secular state should give a thumbs up or down regarding sexual unions is beyond absurd.

If people really want government out of the bedroom, they would kick them out of the marriage business altogether. But like with anything else, they like the entitlements for themselves while not caring about those who don't get them.

But that's politics. Those who throw billions at political leaders, like the gay lobby, will obtain perks that other citizens will be denied.

In short, pay up or shut up.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

It was in Loving v Virginia that the SCOTUS first declared marriage "fundamental to our very existence and survival", a fundamental right. Race isn't mentioned in the 14th Amendment.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It was in Loving v Virginia that the SCOTUS first declared marriage "fundamental to our very existence and survival", a fundamental right. Race isn't mentioned in the 14th Amendment.

The pairing of male and female is fundamental to our very existence and survival. Marriage is the social institution that allows this to happen in an orderly manner.

 

[Seawytch]

It was in Loving v Virginia that the SCOTUS first declared marriage "fundamental to our very existence and survival", a fundamental right. Race isn't mentioned in the 14th Amendment.

The pairing of male and female is fundamental to our very existence and survival. Marriage is the social institution that allows this to happen in an orderly manner.

Nice try...but since procreation has never been a requirement for a civil marriage in this country...ever, you don't have an argument there.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It was in Loving v Virginia that the SCOTUS first declared marriage "fundamental to our very existence and survival", a fundamental right. Race isn't mentioned in the 14th Amendment.

The pairing of male and female is fundamental to our very existence and survival. Marriage is the social institution that allows this to happen in an orderly manner.

Nice try...but since procreation has never been a requirement for a civil marriage in this country...ever, you don't have an argument there.

Just because you do not like my argument, nor agree with it, doesn't mean that I don't have it, nor that it is not valid.

The fact remains that as a matter of hard science, it takes a man and a woman to create a child. Two men cannot do it, and two women cannot do it.

Marriage is about creating a family, binding the man and the woman together such that they will be held responsible for each other, and for any children that they may produce.

To argue that it is even possible for two men to “marry”, or for two women to “marry”, to claim that such a “marriage” is in any way comparable to a genuine marriage between a man and a woman, is simply nonsense, and it goes against science and nature.

 

[Faun]

It was in Loving v Virginia that the SCOTUS first declared marriage "fundamental to our very existence and survival", a fundamental right. Race isn't mentioned in the 14th Amendment.

The pairing of male and female is fundamental to our very existence and survival. Marriage is the social institution that allows this to happen in an orderly manner.

Marriage is a fundamental right for everyone regardless of their ability or desire to procreate.

 

[rdean]

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.

So says someone who wants to marry his sister.

 

[Faun]

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?

So where are all of the human rights activists who are seeking to secure the rights of siblings and polygamists?

That's right, they don't give a damn.

The whole notion that a secular state should give a thumbs up or down regarding sexual unions is beyond absurd.

If people really want government out of the bedroom, they would kick them out of the marriage business altogether. But like with anything else, they like the entitlements for themselves while not caring about those who don't get them.

But that's politics. Those who throw billions at political leaders, like the gay lobby, will obtain perks that other citizens will be denied.

In short, pay up or shut up.

So much for the idiotic rightie whines about a slippery slope, huh? Now you guys are actually complaining there is no slippery slope.

 

[Seawytch]

It was in Loving v Virginia that the SCOTUS first declared marriage "fundamental to our very existence and survival", a fundamental right. Race isn't mentioned in the 14th Amendment.

The pairing of male and female is fundamental to our very existence and survival. Marriage is the social institution that allows this to happen in an orderly manner.

Nice try...but since procreation has never been a requirement for a civil marriage in this country...ever, you don't have an argument there.

Just because you do not like my argument, nor agree with it, doesn't mean that I don't have it, nor that it is not valid.

The fact remains that as a matter of hard science, it takes a man and a woman to create a child. Two men cannot do it, and two women cannot do it.

Marriage is about creating a family, binding the man and the woman together such that they will be held responsible for each other, and for any children that they may produce.

To argue that it is even possible for two men to “marry”, or for two women to “marry”, to claim that such a “marriage” is in any way comparable to a genuine marriage between a man and a woman, is simply nonsense, and it goes against science and nature.

Despite your opinion, not a single state has ever denied (nor will they ever) deny a civil marriage license due to an inability to procreate. Further destroying your "argument" is the fact that in some states, the inability to procreate is a requirement for some civil marriages. (1st cousins).

By the way, being gay does not render one infirtile. I've had five children, two of them even mine...why don't our children deserve married parents?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Nice try...but since procreation has never been a requirement for a civil marriage in this country...ever, you don't have an argument there.

Perhaps it should be. Maybe a marriage should not be recognized until a child is born.

 

[Faun]

Nice try...but since procreation has never been a requirement for a civil marriage in this country...ever, you don't have an argument there.

Perhaps it should be. Maybe a marriage should not be recognized until a child is born.

Perhaps owning a gun should be resticted to those in the military? I mean, if you want to start imposing restrictions on rights, why limit it to marriage?

 

[Rotagilla]

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).

doubletalk and rationalizations

 

[Seawytch]

Nice try...but since procreation has never been a requirement for a civil marriage in this country...ever, you don't have an argument there.

Perhaps it should be. Maybe a marriage should not be recognized until a child is born.

Yeah? You want to tell an 80 year old he can't marry another 80 year old? You try to get a law passed saying children are required for civil marriage. We'll just wait for the sound of laughter.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

By the way, being gay does not render one infirtile. I've had five children, two of them even mine...why don't our children deserve married parents?

Children do deserve married parents. They have a right to it, in fact. There is no excuse for intentionally depriving them of this.

That means a father and a mother.

 

[FA_Q2]

lol.

I wouldn't go that far. I think there is a lot wrong with incestuous marriages. I also think that what I find wrong or 'right' should have absolutely no bearing on your rights or need to protect them.

Do you even have any brothers and sisters wanting to challenge the law? Because it took a lesbo couple to challenge the law in michigan.

If you don't have a victim you don't have a case.

And?
Are we not able to discuss policy or how the law is inconsistent. There are people that this applies to - they just do not reveal it because to do so would bring on massive scrutiny.

Then it isn't socially acceptable like gay marriage.

And that is irrelevant considering rights are not subject to the whims of the majority.

 

[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).

doubletalk and rationalizations

No doubletalk or rationalizations at all.

It seems that you simply cannot deal with the facts here.

 

[Seawytch]

By the way, being gay does not render one infirtile. I've had five children, two of them even mine...why don't our children deserve married parents?

Children do deserve married parents. They have a right to it, in fact. There is no excuse for intentionally depriving them of this.

That means a father and a mother.

No, it doesn't.

 

[RKMBrown]

By the way, being gay does not render one infirtile. I've had five children, two of them even mine...why don't our children deserve married parents?

Children do deserve married parents. They have a right to it, in fact. There is no excuse for intentionally depriving them of this.

That means a father and a mother.

ROFL... why don't you tell that to the face of a military widow? Apparently you don't approve of their lifestyle. I'd like to see you try that.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Children do deserve married parents. They have a right to it, in fact. There is no excuse for intentionally depriving them of this.

That means a father and a mother.

No, it doesn't.

Hard science says otherwise.

Basic biology dictates that it takes both a father and a mother to create a child. That, in its most essential form, is what a set of parents is—a mother and a father. And that is what it takes to properly raise a child, as well.

Why would you defend intentionally depriving children of this, just to cater to the evil desires of sick, immoral perverts? Why do you hold the selfish “rights” of such perverts above the well-being of children?

You, yourself, claimed to believe that children deserve a married set of parents,and then, with the other tip of your forked tongue, you demand that a hollow mockery of such a set of parents be given them as a substitute for the real thing.

 

[Seawytch]

Children do deserve married parents. They have a right to it, in fact. There is no excuse for intentionally depriving them of this.

That means a father and a mother.

No, it doesn't.

Hard science says otherwise.

Basic biology dictates that it takes both a father and a mother to create a child. That, in its most essential form, is what a set of parents is—a mother and a father. And that is what it takes to properly raise a child, as well.

Why would you defend intentionally depriving children of this, just to cater to the evil desires of sick, immoral perverts? Why do you hold the selfish “rights” of such perverts above the well-being of children?

You, yourself, claimed to believe that children deserve a married set of parents,and then, with the other tip of your forked tongue, you demand that a hollow mockery of such a set of parents be given them as a substitute for the real thing.

You're mistaking procreation with parenting. They aren't the same.

Our children have married parents...and they're very thankful to the hard working individuals that fought for and won gay marriage equality.