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

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Gay Marriage isn't Special Rights, it's Equal Rights. 'Special Rights' are for political churches that don't pay taxes

First, Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman...

Second, what special right? No non-profit organizations pays taxes... because taxes are only assessed on PROFITS. Thus there's nothing special about not paying taxes, when one doesn't earn a profit.

But hey! In fairness to you, as a member of the intellectually less fortunate, there is no way you could have known that, dumb-ass!

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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.

Of course, if you think about it, that's what they are trying to do to marriage. The obvious intent behind forcing us to accept a sick mockery of marriage as being comparable to genuine marriage, is to devalue marriage, to get people to see it as being nothing more than the sick mockery. It's part of the quasi-Marxist effort to ultimately abolish marriage and family entirely.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

As a matter of fact I read all the ones here in Iowa and came to the conclusion that the courts have no right to place any restrictions on who can marry who or how they form a marriage group so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

Do you really want me to go through the more recent ones?

I would be thrilled for you to actually do anything more than pull crap out of your ass.

So far, based upon your posts, it is very obvious you either
a) never read any of the actual court decisions- specifically not the Supreme Courts decision or
b) you just aren't capable of understanding the words that were written.

View attachment 50263

I see... When all is lost use the standard progressive tactic of maligning the character of the person.

How's that been working for the progressives lately?

What is lost?

So far you have yet to do more than pull claims out of your ass- why is it you just make unsubstantiated claims rather than anything based upon you know- actual facts?

And gay couples who are in love are getting married.

That is a win for Americans.

I see that you cut the last two sentences of my last post to you out... Having difficulties with that are we?

Perhaps they're not so unsubstantiated since you only care that you got what you want and frak everyone else.

The first thing a discriminating bigot generally does is deny their own bigotry don't you know.

I bow to your greater experience at being a bigot.

Meanwhile- once again- I will gladly point out your fallacies.

You claimed that liberals were losing- the evidence is of course just the opposite.

So far you have yet to do more than pull claims out of your ass- why is it you just make unsubstantiated claims rather than anything based upon you know- actual facts?

And gay couples who are in love are getting married.

That is a win for Americans

In what way am I being a bigot?

I'm not attempting to keep anyone from marrying that would be you.

If you weren't being a bigot you would not be here attempting to persuade people that other mature willing companions don't deserve to enjoy the rights other mature willing companions have been granted.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Of course, if you think about it, that's what they are trying to do to marriage. The obvious intent behind forcing us to accept a sick mockery of marriage as being comparable to genuine marriage, is to devalue marriage, to get people to see it as being nothing more than the sick mockery. It's part of the quasi-Marxist effort to ultimately abolish marriage and family entirely.

Given it's idiocy, we'll assume this is not a serious post, and you're only a troll trying to provoke a rise out of subscribers to this thread.

What's sad and telling, however, is that there are persons so ignorant and hateful as to actually believe this rot.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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.

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.

So now you're admitting that the subject of other forms of marriage were brought up just like I said they were.

Looks like you're nothing more than a pathetic liar and discriminating bigot attempting to keep other mature willing companions from enjoying the same rights, via the 14th Amendment, that other mature willing companions enjoy.

Perhaps you should find some other issue to argue instead of continuing the bigotry you wish to perpetuate.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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.

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.

Why is a close familial relationship a stumbling block to them marrying?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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.

The argument before the courts was that consenting adults, such as gay couples, should be allowed to marry.

Are you saying now that multiple partners and close relatives, all of whom are mature willing companions, are not consenting adults if they choose to form marriage groups?

Are not multiple partners and close relatives, all of whom are mature willing companions, are not free persons?

Sounds like the government only wants to intrude into the affairs of other mature willing companions who's only desire is to form marriage groups of their choosing.

That's called discrimination and a violation of the 14th Amendment.

It's like telling the Asians, Hispanics, Native Americans, etc,... that just because the law now allows blacks and whites to enjoy interracial marriages that they can't.

The government and you need to quit discriminating and allow all mature willing companions to enjoy their...

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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.

Tell that to the ancient Egyptians and Romans.

They had brother-sister and even sibling-parent marriages.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Tell that to the ancient Egyptians and Romans.

They had brother-sister and even sibling-parent marriages.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Funny that he would make a statement like that when it has actually been the exact opposite through most of history.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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.

Last time I checked being a close relative wasn't illegal either.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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

There should be no reason too since the rights of mature consenting adults should be protected by the 14th Amendment.

It should be none of the governments business how mature willing companions wish to form a marriage group so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Of course, if you think about it, that's what they are trying to do to marriage. The obvious intent behind forcing us to accept a sick mockery of marriage as being comparable to genuine marriage, is to devalue marriage, to get people to see it as being nothing more than the sick mockery. It's part of the quasi-Marxist effort to ultimately abolish marriage and family entirely.

Yes, I agree entirely... They are Leftists, doing nothing more, or less than the Left has done to the US since it was formed; to use the soundly reasoned limitations on gov't scope and power outside of reason, as a means to corrupt, thus expand the gov't scope and power, toward the goal of destroying the US.

 

[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.

Tell that to the ancient Egyptians and Romans.

They had brother-sister and even sibling-parent marriages.

*****CHUCKLE*****

They also had homosexual marriage, shortly before the collapse of those long ago defunct societies...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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

There should be no reason too since the rights of mature consenting adults should be protected by the 14th Amendment.

It should be none of the governments business how mature willing companions wish to form a marriage group so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Oh my Yes! The 14th Amendment is a remarkable article of conscience... I was over at the DU yesterday and I found a marvelous recipe for Apple pie, using nothing but 1/2" nuts and bolts and a couple of quarts of Quaker-state, which they said they found in the 14th Amendment.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Of course, if you think about it, that's what they are trying to do to marriage. The obvious intent behind forcing us to accept a sick mockery of marriage as being comparable to genuine marriage, is to devalue marriage, to get people to see it as being nothing more than the sick mockery. It's part of the quasi-Marxist effort to ultimately abolish marriage and family entirely.

Given it's idiocy, we'll assume this is not a serious post, and you're only a troll trying to provoke a rise out of subscribers to this thread.

What's sad and telling, however, is that there are persons so ignorant and hateful as to actually believe this rot.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Seawytch]

There should be no reason too since the rights of mature consenting adults should be protected by the 14th Amendment.

It should be none of the governments business how mature willing companions wish to form a marriage group so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

You're filing your briefs when? When should we expect a court case?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

There should be no reason too since the rights of mature consenting adults should be protected by the 14th Amendment.

It should be none of the governments business how mature willing companions wish to form a marriage group so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

You're filing your briefs when? When should we expect a court case?

What would be the point of filing a brief before a court which is already on record dismissing all reason and abusing the power of its office by simply voting outside any sense of reason, thus failing its singular purpose in serving justice, within the scope of longstanding western jurisprudence and the boundaries established in the US Constitution?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

And you see no difference between a mom marrying her son and two consenting non-related adults marrying?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

The standard remains the same.

Americans have a right to marriage- that is well established- just as owning a gun is a right.

States can deny Americans rights only when they can demonstrate a clear and convincing benefit to the state that denying such rights will accomplish- i.e. denying convicted felons the right to own guns.

Homosexuals were denied their right to marriage simply because of either their attraction to the same gender- or technically- based upon the gender of the person that they wanted to marry.

Siblings- and parents/children- are denied marriage under different laws. Perhaps the State would try to use some of the same arguments against incestuous marriage- such as 'tradition'- that didn't work and wouldn't work as an argument against incestuous marriage.

Whether or not there is an argument against mothers being allowed to marry their sons has absolutely no relation to two unrelated homosexuals are allowed to marry. Either the state(and anyone who is opposed to such a marriage) has an argument- or they don't.

And if the State has no argument- then the law shouldn't exist.

However- in court cases regarding gay marriage, incestuous marriages were brought up- and judges did point out how they are different from gay marriages- indicating that States likely do have persuasive arguments against incestuous marriages.

But if you think that such marriages should be legal- you have the same legal options as gay couples did who fought against laws they felt were unconstitutional- either argue to change the law- that happened in several states- or go to court to claim that your constitutional rights to marry are being violated- and convince the court.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

And you see no difference between a mom marrying her son and two consenting non-related adults marrying?

As a personal preference, of course - one is revolting. I also see a difference in a man and woman marrying and 2 men - one of those is also revolting.

That, however, has no bearing of the civil right to marry and I do not see a difference in any of those situations when it comes to the CIVIL RIGHT.

That is the key - it has been (rightfully so) determined that the state cannot arbitrarily remove the right of a civil marriage.