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

[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.

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.

It has already been pointed out that they do not have convincing arguments as they are not barring far worse situations or marriages under those same premises.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Exactly- the State cannot arbitrarily remove any right- including that of marriage.

IF the State's laws against a mother marrying her son is arbitrary- and has not defendable purpose- then such a law will lose in court.

However, courts have found that there are persuasive arguments for banning incestuous marriages.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

It has already been pointed out that they do not have convincing arguments as they are not barring far worse situations or marriages under those same premises.

So you say- the only way to prove your position is to go to court and make that argument.

Let us know how that works out.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Exactly- the State cannot arbitrarily remove any right- including that of marriage.

IF the State's laws against a mother marrying her son is arbitrary- and has not defendable purpose- then such a law will lose in court.

However, courts have found that there are persuasive arguments for banning incestuous marriages.

AFAIK, they have not because a case has not been run up that far (at least not recently).

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Exactly- the State cannot arbitrarily remove any right- including that of marriage.

IF the State's laws against a mother marrying her son is arbitrary- and has not defendable purpose- then such a law will lose in court.

However, courts have found that there are persuasive arguments for banning incestuous marriages.

AFAIK, they have not because a case has not been run up that far (at least not recently).

From the Wisconsin case on gay marriage: Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 118 Filed: 06/06/14 Page 1 of 88

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on same sex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Exactly- the State cannot arbitrarily remove any right- including that of marriage.

IF the State's laws against a mother marrying her son is arbitrary- and has not defendable purpose- then such a law will lose in court.

However, courts have found that there are persuasive arguments for banning incestuous marriages.

AFAIK, they have not because a case has not been run up that far (at least not recently).

From the Wisconsin case on gay marriage: Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 118 Filed: 06/06/14 Page 1 of 88

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on same sex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.

The specter of incest and polygamy were brought up before...

t 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 1967

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Exactly- the State cannot arbitrarily remove any right- including that of marriage.

IF the State's laws against a mother marrying her son is arbitrary- and has not defendable purpose- then such a law will lose in court.

However, courts have found that there are persuasive arguments for banning incestuous marriages.

The most persuasive argument is that there is no marriage law that can accommodate a father and his daughter 'marrying.'

Again, these ridiculous attempts to compare same-sex couples to 'incest marriage' or 'plural marriage' fail as a fallacy; unlike three or more persons or a father and daughter, same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, just as marriage law is currently written.

Three or more people can't marry because there is no law that exists to accommodate such a configuration, having nothing to do with 'discrimination,' or 'violating' the 14th Amendment.

Indeed, one cannot have his due process and equal protection rights 'violated' because he's 'denied access' to a 'law' that doesn't exist.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The right to marry through civil guidelines is perfectly fine. What you're saying is that people cannot limit the scope of human behavior and that any behavior is rightful behavior, which is absurd on its face.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... these ridiculous attempts to compare same-sex couples to 'incest marriage' or 'plural marriage' ...

Reader, understand what the individual is saying: "these ridiculous attempts to compare sexual deviancy with sexual deviancy and cultural degeneracy..."

Understand sexual deviancy equates precisely to sexual deviancy and is an axiomatic component of cultural degeneracy.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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?

What business is it of the government or yourself if they are mature consenting adults?

Do you suddenly feel some urgent need to dictate how other mature willing companions live their lives?

Hypocrite!

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The most persuasive argument is that there is no marriage law that can accommodate a father and his daughter 'marrying.'

Again, these ridiculous attempts to compare same-sex couples to 'incest marriage' or 'plural marriage' fail as a fallacy; unlike three or more persons or a father and daughter, same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, just as marriage law is currently written.

Three or more people can't marry because there is no law that exists to accommodate such a configuration, having nothing to do with 'discrimination,' or 'violating' the 14th Amendment.

Indeed, one cannot have his due process and equal protection rights 'violated' because he's 'denied access' to a 'law' that doesn't exist.

Which laws would those be that 'do not' accommodate polygamist and close relative marriages?

If there are laws that need to be written to 'accommodate' then the government should learn to evolve.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Faun]

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.

Because ..... nothing exalts the sacred bonds of matrimony more than divorce and bastard kids, right?

 

[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.

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

*****CHUCKLE*****

Because the state doesn't endorse illegal behavior.

 

[Faun]

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*****

No, that was not the argument. The argument was that there is no compelling reason to deny a gay person equal protection of the law.

 

[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.

Because ..... nothing exalts the sacred bonds of matrimony more than divorce and bastard kids, right?

Why are you assuming that just because I very openly disapprove of certain evil things that are being allowed and embraced in our society, which openly attack the institutions of marriage and family, that I must somehow approve of other evil things that also attack marriage and family?

 

[Kondor3]

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.

Because ..... nothing exalts the sacred bonds of matrimony more than divorce and bastard kids, right?

Venial sins at best, compared to the mortal sin of sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality)...

Like comparing a flea to a gorilla...

 

[Faun]

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.

Because ..... nothing exalts the sacred bonds of matrimony more than divorce and bastard kids, right?

Why are you assuming that just because I very openly disapprove of certain evil things that are being allowed and embraced in our society, which openly attack the institutions of marriage and family, that I must somehow approve of other evil things that also attack marriage and family?

Since I haven't seen you post that divorce and having kids out of wedlock should be illegal.

 

[Faun]

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.

Because ..... nothing exalts the sacred bonds of matrimony more than divorce and bastard kids, right?

Venial sins at best, compared to the mortal sin of sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality)...

Like comparing a flea to a gorilla...

In Christianity, the wages of all sin is death.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Homosexuality is not illegal...incest is

Homosexuality used to be illegal in many states.

And slavery used to be legal in several.

Fortunately the Republicans prosecuted a civil war to give the federal government the authority to fix that kind of shit.

Irony eh? What a *****.​

 

[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.

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*****

Because the state doesn't endorse illegal behavior.

Perceptions of what is right and wrong are in a constant state of flux. Everything changes as will the state's view on this issue.

*****CHUCKLE*****