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

[Syriusly]

The Newly Formed Supreme Legislature has established a 'civil right' to marry... .

The right to marry has been recognized for decades- I believe going back to the 1920's.

You just haven't been paying attention until it applied to Americans who happened to be gay.

 

[Syriusly]

No as a matter of fact they are not.

They are indeed both instances where two consenting adults wish to get married and in each case a separate and distinct law prevents them from getting married.

When gay couples went to court for redress, they went to court for redress on their specific issue- exactly as the Lovings did when they went to court to argue that the law which said that they could not get married because of their race was unconstitutional.

When the Lovings won their case, it did not mean that inevitably that gay couples were constitutionally guaranteed a right to marriage.

What did happen was that gay couples- as the Lovings did- argued that their equal rights under the 14th Amendment were violated. States can deny people Constitutional rights- but States can only do so if they can provide a compelling and convincing argument to deny those rights- for example- denying convicted felons the right to own weapons.

States were never able to make a convincing argument as to why mixed race couples or gay couples should not be allowed to marry.

Can States make a convincing argument that marriage between two siblings should be illegal? If States can't- then they couldn't before Obergefell, if States can- then they can regardless of Obergefell.

None of that addresses the fact that the two instances are, essentially, identical.

Your tangent has nothing to do with what I have stated.

They aren't identical. Gay couples marrying are exactly like straight couples marrying. Non familial and consenting adults.

Yes they are.

You keep stating that they are not yet not actually pointing out the difference.

You have yet to point out how they are 'identical'.

By that standards heterosexual couples are identical to homosexual couples- and mixed race couples are identical to gay couples.

But the circumstances are different in every case.

The question is whether or not the State has a convincing and persuasive argument on why siblings should not be able to marry. This was addressed by at least one judge in one of the cases regarding gay marriage.

Yes I have, MULTIPLE times.

You are now being obtuse on purpose.

Just saying they are 'identical' doesn't make them so.

By that standards heterosexual couples are identical to homosexual couples- and mixed race couples are identical to gay couples.

But the circumstances are different in every case.

The question is whether or not the State has a convincing and persuasive argument on why siblings should not be able to marry. This was addressed by at least one judge in one of the cases regarding gay marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

The SSM argument presented to the courts was consenting adults should be allowed to marry. Which means that any law that forbids consenting adults to marry as they choose is now in question because it denies equal protection under the law.

Yes indeed. How can polygamy or sibling marriage be banned now.??? The SCOTUS should have left marriage to the states - which is where the constitution says it belongs anyway.

Same gender marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for around 11 years now.

Still now polygamy or sibling marriage allowed in Massachusetts.

Why?

Well because they aren't the same things.

But if you want to go to court to sue for your right to marry your sister- that is your right.

As a matter of fact, they are.
They are both instances where two consenting adults wish to get married and were denied access to those laws. Now one of those groups has finally managed to access them. There is not reason that the other should not also have the same access.

Of course there is. One is legal while the other is not.

lol.

That is irrespective of the actual relationship. That is the point of this debate is it not - the claim that there is no reason that they should be barred from marrying.

Well I am sure that some couple will go to court making that claim.

And if the State that they live in cannot provide any reason as to why they should not be allowed to marry- then that is the State's problem.

No reason why the State should have a law on the books if they can't justify it.

 

[Faun]

Same gender marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for around 11 years now.

Still now polygamy or sibling marriage allowed in Massachusetts.

Why?

Well because they aren't the same things.

But if you want to go to court to sue for your right to marry your sister- that is your right.

As a matter of fact, they are.
They are both instances where two consenting adults wish to get married and were denied access to those laws. Now one of those groups has finally managed to access them. There is not reason that the other should not also have the same access.

Of course there is. One is legal while the other is not.

lol.

That is irrespective of the actual relationship. That is the point of this debate is it not - the claim that there is no reason that they should be barred from marrying.

The legal status of too close familial relationships is a key stumbling block to siblings marrying.

Y'all have A LOT of work to do.

*sigh*

You are not listing nor do you give a damn about actual rights or equal access - something you have been falsely claiming to champion for years.

It was all about getting what you wanted and ignoring any actual impact or extension of the same. I am not surprised.

Try as hard as you might, you can't ignore that one is legal and the other is not.

There was no reasobable excuse to deny gays their Constitutional right to be treated equal under the laws in terms of marriage; whereas, there is a compelling reason to deny those who violate incest laws.

 

[FA_Q2]

None of that addresses the fact that the two instances are, essentially, identical.

Your tangent has nothing to do with what I have stated.

They aren't identical. Gay couples marrying are exactly like straight couples marrying. Non familial and consenting adults.

Yes they are.

You keep stating that they are not yet not actually pointing out the difference.

You have yet to point out how they are 'identical'.

By that standards heterosexual couples are identical to homosexual couples- and mixed race couples are identical to gay couples.

But the circumstances are different in every case.

The question is whether or not the State has a convincing and persuasive argument on why siblings should not be able to marry. This was addressed by at least one judge in one of the cases regarding gay marriage.

Yes I have, MULTIPLE times.

You are now being obtuse on purpose.

Just saying they are 'identical' doesn't make them so.

By that standards heterosexual couples are identical to homosexual couples- and mixed race couples are identical to gay couples.

But the circumstances are different in every case.

The question is whether or not the State has a convincing and persuasive argument on why siblings should not be able to marry. This was addressed by at least one judge in one of the cases regarding gay marriage.

they are all identical as far as the right to marry (what we are talking about here) goes.
There is no difference from an interracial, hetro or homosexual marriage.

 

[FA_Q2]

As a matter of fact, they are.
They are both instances where two consenting adults wish to get married and were denied access to those laws. Now one of those groups has finally managed to access them. There is not reason that the other should not also have the same access.

Of course there is. One is legal while the other is not.

lol.

That is irrespective of the actual relationship. That is the point of this debate is it not - the claim that there is no reason that they should be barred from marrying.

The legal status of too close familial relationships is a key stumbling block to siblings marrying.

Y'all have A LOT of work to do.

*sigh*

You are not listing nor do you give a damn about actual rights or equal access - something you have been falsely claiming to champion for years.

It was all about getting what you wanted and ignoring any actual impact or extension of the same. I am not surprised.

Try as hard as you might, you can't ignore that one is legal and the other is not.

There was no reasobable excuse to deny gays their Constitutional right to be treated equal under the laws in terms of marriage; whereas, there is a compelling reason to deny those who violate incest laws.

And the same could have been said for gay marriage.

That did not seem to matter though - did it. Try hard as you might, simply pointing to a law that is fundamentally flawed does not make a valid argument to allow the law to stand.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Of course there is. One is legal while the other is not.

lol.

That is irrespective of the actual relationship. That is the point of this debate is it not - the claim that there is no reason that they should be barred from marrying.

The legal status of too close familial relationships is a key stumbling block to siblings marrying.

Y'all have A LOT of work to do.

*sigh*

You are not listing nor do you give a damn about actual rights or equal access - something you have been falsely claiming to champion for years.

It was all about getting what you wanted and ignoring any actual impact or extension of the same. I am not surprised.

Try as hard as you might, you can't ignore that one is legal and the other is not.

There was no reasobable excuse to deny gays their Constitutional right to be treated equal under the laws in terms of marriage; whereas, there is a compelling reason to deny those who violate incest laws.

And the same could have been said for gay marriage.

That did not seem to matter though - did it. Try hard as you might, simply pointing to a law that is fundamentally flawed does not make a valid argument to allow the law to stand.

Incorrect.

Again, there is no such thing as 'gay marriage,' there is only one marriage law available to same- or opposite-sex couples who are consenting adults, who are not related to each other, and who are indeed a couple – two people only.

To refuse to allow same-sex couples access marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.

Because marriage law is not written to accommodate persons related to each other, there is no 14th Amendment violation – indeed, the states cannot 'violate' the rights of citizens concerning a law that doesn't exist, or a law that isn't applicable to them.

And the same is true with regard to three persons who want to 'marry,' or someone who wants to 'marry' a six year old – they're prohibited from doing so not because of 'discrimination,' but because no marriage law exists to accommodate such a configuration.

Consequently the same cannot be said for same-sex couples marrying – to compare same-sex couples to those who want to engage in 'incest marriage' or 'plural marriage' fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Last, the 14th Amendment jurisprudence upon which Obergefell is based is in no way 'flawed,' 'fundamentally' or otherwise. Obergefell is the progeny of sound, consistent, well-reasoned, logical case law in accordance with the original intent of the 14th Amendment: that American citizens residing in the states cannot have their inalienable rights violated by the states predicated solely on who those citizens are.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Newly Formed Supreme Legislature has established a 'civil right' to marry... .

The right to marry has been recognized for decades- I believe going back to the 1920's.

You just haven't been paying attention until it applied to Americans who happened to be gay.

Correct.

1888, actually:

'Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”'

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

And gay Americans are certainly free persons “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect,” such as seeking to deny same-sex couples the right to marry for no other reason than being gay.

 

[FA_Q2]

lol.

That is irrespective of the actual relationship. That is the point of this debate is it not - the claim that there is no reason that they should be barred from marrying.

The legal status of too close familial relationships is a key stumbling block to siblings marrying.

Y'all have A LOT of work to do.

*sigh*

You are not listing nor do you give a damn about actual rights or equal access - something you have been falsely claiming to champion for years.

It was all about getting what you wanted and ignoring any actual impact or extension of the same. I am not surprised.

Try as hard as you might, you can't ignore that one is legal and the other is not.

There was no reasobable excuse to deny gays their Constitutional right to be treated equal under the laws in terms of marriage; whereas, there is a compelling reason to deny those who violate incest laws.

And the same could have been said for gay marriage.

That did not seem to matter though - did it. Try hard as you might, simply pointing to a law that is fundamentally flawed does not make a valid argument to allow the law to stand.

Incorrect.

Again, there is no such thing as 'gay marriage,' there is only one marriage law available to same- or opposite-sex couples who are consenting adults, who are not related to each other, and who are indeed a couple – two people only.

To refuse to allow same-sex couples access marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.

Because marriage law is not written to accommodate persons related to each other, there is no 14th Amendment violation – indeed, the states cannot 'violate' the rights of citizens concerning a law that doesn't exist, or a law that isn't applicable to them.

And the same is true with regard to three persons who want to 'marry,' or someone who wants to 'marry' a six year old – they're prohibited from doing so not because of 'discrimination,' but because no marriage law exists to accommodate such a configuration.

Consequently the same cannot be said for same-sex couples marrying – to compare same-sex couples to those who want to engage in 'incest marriage' or 'plural marriage' fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Last, the 14th Amendment jurisprudence upon which Obergefell is based is in no way 'flawed,' 'fundamentally' or otherwise. Obergefell is the progeny of sound, consistent, well-reasoned, logical case law in accordance with the original intent of the 14th Amendment: that American citizens residing in the states cannot have their inalienable rights violated by the states predicated solely on who those citizens are.

Blah blah blah.

10 years ago no such law existed to accommodate same sex marriage either. Did that make it correct? No of course not.

Such a view rests in the idea that the law is static when it is not.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The SSM argument presented to the courts was consenting adults should be allowed to marry. Which means that any law that forbids consenting adults to marry as they choose is now in question because it denies equal protection under the law.

Yes indeed. How can polygamy or sibling marriage be banned now.??? The SCOTUS should have left marriage to the states - which is where the constitution says it belongs anyway.

Same gender marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for around 11 years now.

Still now polygamy or sibling marriage allowed in Massachusetts.

Why?

Well because they aren't the same things.

But if you want to go to court to sue for your right to marry your sister- that is your right.

As a matter of fact, they are.
They are both instances where two consenting adults wish to get married and were denied access to those laws. Now one of those groups has finally managed to access them. There is not reason that the other should not also have the same access.

There is a reason why essentially every society that has ever existed on this planet has outlawed incest as a social more.

 

[Seawytch]

They aren't identical. Gay couples marrying are exactly like straight couples marrying. Non familial and consenting adults.

Yes they are.

You keep stating that they are not yet not actually pointing out the difference.

You have yet to point out how they are 'identical'.

By that standards heterosexual couples are identical to homosexual couples- and mixed race couples are identical to gay couples.

But the circumstances are different in every case.

The question is whether or not the State has a convincing and persuasive argument on why siblings should not be able to marry. This was addressed by at least one judge in one of the cases regarding gay marriage.

Yes I have, MULTIPLE times.

You are now being obtuse on purpose.

Just saying they are 'identical' doesn't make them so.

By that standards heterosexual couples are identical to homosexual couples- and mixed race couples are identical to gay couples.

But the circumstances are different in every case.

The question is whether or not the State has a convincing and persuasive argument on why siblings should not be able to marry. This was addressed by at least one judge in one of the cases regarding gay marriage.

they are all identical as far as the right to marry (what we are talking about here) goes.
There is no difference from an interracial, hetro or homosexual marriage.

Hey, you got it right. There is no difference between gay, heterosexual and interracial couples marrying. All are NON FAMILIAL and CONSENTING ADULT.

Gay and interracial marriages are even more eerily similar since both brought up the specter of the slippery slope.

It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.​

R. D. McIlwaine III, Virginia's assistant attorney general, in 1967

 

[Faun]

Of course there is. One is legal while the other is not.

lol.

That is irrespective of the actual relationship. That is the point of this debate is it not - the claim that there is no reason that they should be barred from marrying.

The legal status of too close familial relationships is a key stumbling block to siblings marrying.

Y'all have A LOT of work to do.

*sigh*

You are not listing nor do you give a damn about actual rights or equal access - something you have been falsely claiming to champion for years.

It was all about getting what you wanted and ignoring any actual impact or extension of the same. I am not surprised.

Try as hard as you might, you can't ignore that one is legal and the other is not.

There was no reasobable excuse to deny gays their Constitutional right to be treated equal under the laws in terms of marriage; whereas, there is a compelling reason to deny those who violate incest laws.

And the same could have been said for gay marriage.

That did not seem to matter though - did it. Try hard as you might, simply pointing to a law that is fundamentally flawed does not make a valid argument to allow the law to stand.

No, the same could not be said for gay marriage. That's the part you can't understand. Homosexuality is not illegal. There was no compelling reason to deny gays equal protection of the law. Whereas there is a compelling reason to deny incestuous marriage since incest is against the law. You fail to point out how the law is fundamentally flawed.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Newly Formed Supreme Legislature has established a 'civil right' to marry... .

The right to marry has been recognized for decades- I believe going back to the 1920's.

You just haven't been paying attention until it applied to Americans who happened to be gay.

Correct.

1888, actually:

'Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals.

So what? Having a right to marry does not set aside the fundamental qualifications within the definition of marriage. And playing the Race card and hoping to slam that template over the irrefutable natural standard for marriage, regarding the distinct genders, is patently absurd.

I have a right to speak freely, but that right is limited by my responsibility to speak within the construct which defends the rights of others to not be injured by what I say.

Just as my right to marry is limited by my bearing the responsibility to marry within the standard established by nature, through the human physiological design of the frickin' SPECIES!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The SSM argument presented to the courts was consenting adults should be allowed to marry. Which means that any law that forbids consenting adults to marry as they choose is now in question because it denies equal protection under the law.

Yes indeed. How can polygamy or sibling marriage be banned now.??? The SCOTUS should have left marriage to the states - which is where the constitution says it belongs anyway.

Same gender marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for around 11 years now.

Still now polygamy or sibling marriage allowed in Massachusetts.

Why?

Well because they aren't the same things.

But if you want to go to court to sue for your right to marry your sister- that is your right.

As a matter of fact, they are.
They are both instances where two consenting adults wish to get married and were denied access to those laws. Now one of those groups has finally managed to access them. There is not reason that the other should not also have the same access.

There is a reason why essentially every society that has ever existed on this planet has outlawed incest as a social more.

Yes... and that reason is being demonstrated by the consequences of long standing incest by the tribal cultures of Islam. It tends to reduce the culture to idiotic mush.

Just as there is a reason why essentially every society that has ever existed on this planet has outlawed sodomy, and marriage outside of the natural standard of marriage established by the physiological design of the species.

Just as there is a reason that homosexuals have spent 99.9999999~% of human history in the closet...

The Cult of Left-think simply chose to ignore those reasons, forcing humanity to witness and RELEARN THE REASON AND THE LESSON THAT COME WITH IGNORING THE OBVIOUS... ONE MORE TIME. [/QUOTE]

 

[rightwinger]

Try it. Go down to the court house and ask for a marriage licence for you and your sister. If refused then start through the process. There is absolutely nothing I see in the law, now, the would bar you from marring your sister. So go for it.

Sex isn't a problem because as I understand it the whole reason that gays wanted to marry is for economic reasons. I had a friend that had to find me out and tell me about their same sex marriage. I think because they were genuinely happy put it could have been just in my face type of thing.

I asked why in the hell did they want to get into all of that. I was given exactly the same BS reasons I hear on this board, but not once did they say they wanted to marry the other person because they loved them, not once.

You are welcome to do that

They laughed at gays when they first asked for the right to marry. Here is what gays had to do:

Get homosexuality legalized in all states
Get public support
Get the courts to agree with them
Fight state by stte for the right to marry
Concince the Supreme Court

If you feel strongly about it, you are welcome to try the same thing for incest, pedophilia, bestiality or any other fantasy you may have. Gays succeeded, I doubt if you will

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

They laughed at gays

And they will always laugh at them... because they're degenerates and thats what ya do to degenerates.

You can re-name them every year; call them "Human Perfection" and you will not get humanity to see sexual degenerates as human perfection, you will simply convert the term perfection to represent DEGENERACY.

Just as Marriage remains EXCLUSIVELY: The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

 

[Faun]

They laughed at gays

And they will always laugh at them... because they're degenerates and thats what ya do to degenerates.

You can re-name them every year; call them "Human Perfection" and you will not get humanity to see sexual degenerates as human perfection, you will simply convert the term perfection to be DEGENERATE.

Just as Marriage remains EXCLUSIVELY: The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Day 83 of the Great Conservative Butthurt.

 

[Seawytch]

They laughed at gays

And they will always laugh at them... because they're degenerates and thats what ya do to degenerates.

You can re-name them every year; call them "Human Perfection" and you will not get humanity to see sexual degenerates as human perfection, you will simply convert the term perfection to be DEGENERATE.

Just as Marriage remains EXCLUSIVELY: The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Day 83 of the Great Conservative Butthurt.

Wow...83 days already? Time flies when you're legally married in all 50 states.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Wow...83 days already? Time flies when you're legally married in all 50 states.

LOL! Remember Klaus? That's damn' near a QUOTE!

Let me see if I can find his post...

.
.
.

Hold on... It's right here somewhere.

.

.

.

OH! FOUND IT!

73 Days already! Time Flies when you're legally operating a FINAL SOLUTION GAS CHAMBER!"

Sadly... Klaus was last heard from some time in '46... with his last post pleading:

IT WAS LEGAL MAN! I WAS FOLLOWING ORDERS!"

Poor Progressive bas-tard... He too got caught up in populist drivel, setting aside all concern for soundly reasoned morality... he just sort of went along with the crowd and he ended up spending his last moments hanging out over there in the Hague.

 

[Faun]

Wow...83 days already? Time flies when you're legally married in all 50 states.

LOL! Remember Klaus? That's damn' near a QUOTE!

Let me see if I can find his post...

.
.
.

Hold on... It's right here somewhere.

.

.

.

OH! FOUND IT!

"73 Days already! Time Flies when you're legally operating a FINAL SOLUTION GAS CHAMBER!"

Sadly... Klaus was last heard from some time in '46... with his last post pleading: "IT WAS LEGAL MAN! I WAS FOLLOWING ORDERS!"

Poor Progressive bas-tard... He too got caught up in populist drivel, setting aside all concern for soundly reasoned morality... he just sort of went along with the crowd and he ended up spending his last moments hanging out over there in the Hague.

You realize where you went digging for that "post" qualifies you as gay, right?