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

[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*****

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.

I read the term 'consenting adults' mentioned several times in the Iowa rulings which came prior to this most recent ruling so too me that term is part of the justification of the ruling.

So now you're saying that all mature willing companions don't deserve equal protection under the law?

Show me a compelling reason not to support allowing all mature willing companions to form marriage groups as they choose so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

Good luck with that.

*****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.

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?

Approve or disapprove of whatever you like.

Provided you acknowledge that as a fact of law allowing same-sex couples to enter into marriage contracts in no way 'attacks' marriage and family; evil manifests when the state seeks through force of law to disadvantage a class persons predicated solely on who they are.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's the argument against two sisters getting married?

The whole 'genetic defects' canard can't be used, same sex marriage is now a constitutional right...so...

...what's the argument?

 

[Kondor3]

...in Christianity, the wages of all sin is death.

How would you know?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What's the argument against two sisters getting married?

The whole 'genetic defects' canard can't be used, same sex marriage is now a constitutional right...so...

...what's the argument?

There is no marriage law which exists that can accommodate two persons closely related to each other, such as siblings. It's not so much an argument as a fact of law. The states aren't 'disallowing' two sisters to marry, there simply isn't any contract law written for such a configuration.

The mistake those opposed to the equal protection rights of gay Americans made was to advance the lie that allowing same-sex couples to marry would 'change' marriage, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth; marriage remains unaltered, unchanged, and not 'redefined.'

Indeed, state marriage laws before Obergefell are the same laws after – none repealed, rewritten, or amended.

Marriage is the union of two adult, consenting partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite sex.

 

[Seawytch]

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...

Really? So something Jesus himself actually spoke out against is a lesser "sin" than something he never said a ******* thing about?

 

[Kondor3]

Really? So something Jesus himself actually spoke out against is a lesser "sin" than something he never said a ******* thing about?

Another juicy rationalization from the Kweer Klown Kar...

 

[Seawytch]

Really? So something Jesus himself actually spoke out against is a lesser "sin" than something he never said a ******* thing about?

Another juicy rationalization from the Kweer Klown Kar...

Another deflection from the Bible Buffet brigade.

 

[Dad2three]

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.

Because we already have CONservatives, no need to create more mentally challenged?

 

[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.

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*****

And yet, homosexuality remains legal while incest is not. Just think, if that ever changes, you might just have a point.

 

[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.

I read the term 'consenting adults' mentioned several times in the Iowa rulings which came prior to this most recent ruling so too me that term is part of the justification of the ruling.

So now you're saying that all mature willing companions don't deserve equal protection under the law?

Show me a compelling reason not to support allowing all mature willing companions to form marriage groups as they choose so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

Good luck with that.

*****CHUCKLE*****

No, I'm not saying that. I am saying the law is equally applied. Incestuous marriage is not allowed for anyone so everyone is treated the same.

And the compelling reason you seek has been explained to you. Incest is illegal. Polygamy is illegal. The state does not offer marriage licenses which endorse illegal behavior. If homosexuality was still illegal, same-sex marriage would never have been allowed for the same reason.

 

[Faun]

...in Christianity, the wages of all sin is death.

How would you know?

I know the same way everyone can know that ... that's what the Bible says.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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.

I read the term 'consenting adults' mentioned several times in the Iowa rulings which came prior to this most recent ruling so too me that term is part of the justification of the ruling.

So now you're saying that all mature willing companions don't deserve equal protection under the law?

Show me a compelling reason not to support allowing all mature willing companions to form marriage groups as they choose so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

Good luck with that.

*****CHUCKLE*****

No, I'm not saying that. I am saying the law is equally applied. Incestuous marriage is not allowed for anyone so everyone is treated the same.

And the compelling reason you seek has been explained to you. Incest is illegal. Polygamy is illegal. The state does not offer marriage licenses which endorse illegal behavior. If homosexuality was still illegal, same-sex marriage would never have been allowed for the same reason.

You've not shown me anything to make me believe that the behavior, namely allowing close relatives and multiple partners to marry, should be considered illegal. As I recall the 14th Amendment forbids states from making or creating laws that abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Since these laws you mention also deny these other mature willing companions their liberty to marry freely with other consenting adults this also violates the 14th Amendment. Therefore 'NO', the law is not equally applied because people with latent closet religious beliefs, such as yourself, believe that close relatives and multiple partner marriage should be illegal, though you can't explain why it should be illegal.

FACT: The courts brought up the subject of close relatives and multiple partners when making their decision.

Close relatives and multiple partners are only mature willing companions who deserve equal protection from laws that violate their privileges and liberty to live as they choose.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Really? So something Jesus himself actually spoke out against is a lesser "sin" than something he never said a ******* thing about?

Jesus defined Human Sexuality and in so doing Marriage.

“Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? Mathew 19 4-5

That he did not spend his time going down the list of possible deviancies that are excluded from human sexuality and marriage, is not inclusion.

But hey... In fairness to you, as an imbecile, there is NO WAY YOU COULD HAVE KNOWN THAT!

Sadly for you, ignorance of sound reason is not a viable defense.

 

[Faun]

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.

I read the term 'consenting adults' mentioned several times in the Iowa rulings which came prior to this most recent ruling so too me that term is part of the justification of the ruling.

So now you're saying that all mature willing companions don't deserve equal protection under the law?

Show me a compelling reason not to support allowing all mature willing companions to form marriage groups as they choose so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

Good luck with that.

*****CHUCKLE*****

No, I'm not saying that. I am saying the law is equally applied. Incestuous marriage is not allowed for anyone so everyone is treated the same.

And the compelling reason you seek has been explained to you. Incest is illegal. Polygamy is illegal. The state does not offer marriage licenses which endorse illegal behavior. If homosexuality was still illegal, same-sex marriage would never have been allowed for the same reason.

You've not shown me anything to make me believe that the behavior, namely allowing close relatives and multiple partners to marry, should be considered illegal. As I recall the 14th Amendment forbids states from making or creating laws that abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Since these laws you mention also deny these other mature willing companions their liberty to marry freely with other consenting adults this also violates the 14th Amendment. Therefore 'NO', the law is not equally applied because people with latent closet religious beliefs, such as yourself, believe that close relatives and multiple partner marriage should be illegal, though you can't explain why it should be illegal.

FACT: The courts brought up the subject of close relatives and multiple partners when making their decision.

Close relatives and multiple partners are only mature willing companions who deserve equal protection from laws that violate their privileges and liberty to live as they choose.

*****CHUCKLE*****

I don't have to show you why those acts are illegal. They are. Your position dies a thousand deaths because of it since their legal status is a compelling reason to ban those types of marriages.

Now if you want to fight for those acts to be legal, you're more than welcome to file suit in your state.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

I read the term 'consenting adults' mentioned several times in the Iowa rulings which came prior to this most recent ruling so too me that term is part of the justification of the ruling.

So now you're saying that all mature willing companions don't deserve equal protection under the law?

Show me a compelling reason not to support allowing all mature willing companions to form marriage groups as they choose so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

Good luck with that.

*****CHUCKLE*****

No, I'm not saying that. I am saying the law is equally applied. Incestuous marriage is not allowed for anyone so everyone is treated the same.

And the compelling reason you seek has been explained to you. Incest is illegal. Polygamy is illegal. The state does not offer marriage licenses which endorse illegal behavior. If homosexuality was still illegal, same-sex marriage would never have been allowed for the same reason.

You've not shown me anything to make me believe that the behavior, namely allowing close relatives and multiple partners to marry, should be considered illegal. As I recall the 14th Amendment forbids states from making or creating laws that abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Since these laws you mention also deny these other mature willing companions their liberty to marry freely with other consenting adults this also violates the 14th Amendment. Therefore 'NO', the law is not equally applied because people with latent closet religious beliefs, such as yourself, believe that close relatives and multiple partner marriage should be illegal, though you can't explain why it should be illegal.

FACT: The courts brought up the subject of close relatives and multiple partners when making their decision.

Close relatives and multiple partners are only mature willing companions who deserve equal protection from laws that violate their privileges and liberty to live as they choose.

*****CHUCKLE*****

I don't have to show you why those acts are illegal. They are. Your position dies a thousand deaths because of it since their legal status is a compelling reason to ban those types of marriages.

Now if you want to fight for those acts to be legal, you're more than welcome to file suit in your state.

Actually... it's YOUR positions that dies.

As by failing to show reason why another deviancy should be illegal; within the scope of argument that decriminalized/normalized YOUR deviancy... you demonstrate that the decriminalization/normalization of YOUR DEVIANCY was NOT REASONABLE... and why such can only and will only be reversed, once the catastrophic consequences of unreasonable public policy inevitably manifests.

Such is the inevitable consequence of Relativism... and such is why it must always result in chaos, calamity and catastrophe. Thus that in which is which evil has always resulted, since the beginning of time.

 

[Faun]

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.

I read the term 'consenting adults' mentioned several times in the Iowa rulings which came prior to this most recent ruling so too me that term is part of the justification of the ruling.

So now you're saying that all mature willing companions don't deserve equal protection under the law?

Show me a compelling reason not to support allowing all mature willing companions to form marriage groups as they choose so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

Good luck with that.

*****CHUCKLE*****

No, I'm not saying that. I am saying the law is equally applied. Incestuous marriage is not allowed for anyone so everyone is treated the same.

And the compelling reason you seek has been explained to you. Incest is illegal. Polygamy is illegal. The state does not offer marriage licenses which endorse illegal behavior. If homosexuality was still illegal, same-sex marriage would never have been allowed for the same reason.

You've not shown me anything to make me believe that the behavior, namely allowing close relatives and multiple partners to marry, should be considered illegal. As I recall the 14th Amendment forbids states from making or creating laws that abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Since these laws you mention also deny these other mature willing companions their liberty to marry freely with other consenting adults this also violates the 14th Amendment. Therefore 'NO', the law is not equally applied because people with latent closet religious beliefs, such as yourself, believe that close relatives and multiple partner marriage should be illegal, though you can't explain why it should be illegal.

FACT: The courts brought up the subject of close relatives and multiple partners when making their decision.

Close relatives and multiple partners are only mature willing companions who deserve equal protection from laws that violate their privileges and liberty to live as they choose.

*****CHUCKLE*****

I don't have to show you why those acts are illegal. They are. Your position dies a thousand deaths because of it since their legal status is a compelling reason to ban those types of marriages.

Now if you want to fight for those acts to be legal, you're more than welcome to file suit in your state.

Actually... it's YOUR positions that dies.

As by failing to show reason why another deviancy should be illegal; within the scope of argument that decriminalized/normalized YOUR deviancy... you demonstrate that the decriminalization/normalization of YOUR DEVIANCY was NOT REASONABLE... and why such can only and will only be reversed, once the catastrophic consequences of unreasonable public policy inevitably manifests.

Such is the inevitable consequence of Relativism... and such is why it must always result in chaos, calamity and catastrophe. Thus that in which is which evil has always resulted, since the beginning of time.

It's been shown a 100 times by myself and others. It's no one responsibility to show you again just because you're a ******* idiot who's simply not capable of understanding.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

I read the term 'consenting adults' mentioned several times in the Iowa rulings which came prior to this most recent ruling so too me that term is part of the justification of the ruling.

So now you're saying that all mature willing companions don't deserve equal protection under the law?

Show me a compelling reason not to support allowing all mature willing companions to form marriage groups as they choose so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

Good luck with that.

*****CHUCKLE*****

No, I'm not saying that. I am saying the law is equally applied. Incestuous marriage is not allowed for anyone so everyone is treated the same.

And the compelling reason you seek has been explained to you. Incest is illegal. Polygamy is illegal. The state does not offer marriage licenses which endorse illegal behavior. If homosexuality was still illegal, same-sex marriage would never have been allowed for the same reason.

You've not shown me anything to make me believe that the behavior, namely allowing close relatives and multiple partners to marry, should be considered illegal. As I recall the 14th Amendment forbids states from making or creating laws that abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Since these laws you mention also deny these other mature willing companions their liberty to marry freely with other consenting adults this also violates the 14th Amendment. Therefore 'NO', the law is not equally applied because people with latent closet religious beliefs, such as yourself, believe that close relatives and multiple partner marriage should be illegal, though you can't explain why it should be illegal.

FACT: The courts brought up the subject of close relatives and multiple partners when making their decision.

Close relatives and multiple partners are only mature willing companions who deserve equal protection from laws that violate their privileges and liberty to live as they choose.

*****CHUCKLE*****

I don't have to show you why those acts are illegal. They are. Your position dies a thousand deaths because of it since their legal status is a compelling reason to ban those types of marriages.

Now if you want to fight for those acts to be legal, you're more than welcome to file suit in your state.

Actually... it's YOUR positions that dies.

As by failing to show reason why another deviancy should be illegal; within the scope of argument that decriminalized/normalized YOUR deviancy... you demonstrate that the decriminalization/normalization of YOUR DEVIANCY was NOT REASONABLE... and why such can only and will only be reversed, once the catastrophic consequences of unreasonable public policy inevitably manifests.

Such is the inevitable consequence of Relativism... and such is why it must always result in chaos, calamity and catastrophe. Thus that in which is which evil has always resulted, since the beginning of time.

Given that your views are only held by a minority of the population, your agenda only works under an undemocratic government.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Given that your views are only held by a minority of the population...

ROFLMNAO...

Poor Gilligan.

There is not a single synapse in its gourd that does not initiate the production of a fallacious construct.

This most recent offering being the tattered Argumentum ad Populum... (The fallacious appeal to popularity).

The coolest part is that it lacks the slightest means to understand what that means... thus it has no means to ever rise above it.

OH! Gilligan... you most recent concession, is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Syriusly]

Given that your views are only held by a minority of the population...

ROFLMNAO...

Poor Gilligan.

There is not a single synapse in its gourd that does not initiate the production of a fallacious construct.

This most recent offering being the tattered Argumentum ad Populum... (The fallacious appeal to popularity).

The coolest part is that it lacks the slightest means to understand what that means... thus it has no means to ever rise above it.

OH! Gilligan... you most recent concession, is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Keys grows more delusional every day.