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

[Damaged Eagle]

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

Because marriage is a union between two consenting, adult, and equal partners not related to each other in a relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Given the return of this and similar moronic threads, clearly the Obergefell sitzkrieg is over.

People are related to each other marry all the time.

If we go by the Bible or evolution everyone is related if we go back far enough.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Wouldn't the OP be better served filing lawsuits and pushing his representatives to make this come to pass? That takes work though and whining on the web is so much easier.

Shouldn't have too.

The argument the SSM crowd used before the courts was for mature willing companions to marry.

Therefore all mature willing companions should be allowed the same rights to form marriage groups as they choose too as per the 14th Amendment and Civil Rights Act.

Anything less is discrimination and bigotry by the courts and those who oppose granting those same rights to others when they ask for a license to marry.

******SMILE******

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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.

If ******* your sister was good enough for Noahs grandkids it should be good enough for us, right?

I'd love to marry my brother. He's rich!

Yep. Lots of incest in the bible. Not mention polygamy.

If the thumpers are going to try to use sharia law, they have to accept that others will to.

Seriously for a moment. This is a serious question to Christians. What does the bible say about ******* your sister?

Where in a marriage contract does it say you have to have sex with your partner in marriage?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[RKMBrown]

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 your baby sister is not a consenting adult you piece of shit.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

If ******* your sister was good enough for Noahs grandkids it should be good enough for us, right?

I'd love to marry my brother. He's rich!

Yep. Lots of incest in the bible. Not mention polygamy.

If the thumpers are going to try to use sharia law, they have to accept that others will to.

Seriously for a moment. This is a serious question to Christians. What does the bible say about ******* your sister?

Where in a marriage contract does it say you have to have sex with your partner in marriage?

*****CHUCKLE*****

You people who are anti gay marriage aren't convincing any of us liberals to support sibling marriage. Even we agree that's gross.

 

[Care4all]

Not this tried tripe again? No law was made. You can stomp your feet and claim otherwise until the cows come home but it doesn't change reality. Besides, what you suggest requires years of work and loads of money but like I said whining on the internet is far easier.

Your whine is superb. Law was made. Could gays marry before the ruling? Could they after? What law was changed? You can call it tripe but the truth never goes away.

Now, would you like to talk about corporations being people?

I have nothing to whine about as my side won the battle. What is the law number? Oh wait, it does exist as no law was created. You'll get over it but the meantime I do enjoy watching these hissy fits.

Then gays can't get married? I agree, no law was changed but gays can get married how in the hell does that work in liberal land? The SCOTUS made law with their ruling, that is fact.

No, that is merely your opinion that you are pretending to be fact. It isn't. I take solace in knowing that all across the nation gays are getting married and their isn't a damn thing you can do about it. Save crying on the web and shaking your fists.

Congrats to you and your same sex partner, I hope you will be happy. I don't give a crap if you do the bone dance with your brother's sphincter. But that does not change what the SCOTUS did. They made law. Gays couldn't get married then they could, the law changed, law was made that is all I am arguing.

You crowing about winning is in reality what most liberal issues are about, winning.

i think they struck down a law created by the state to basically ban same sex marriage.... by striking down this law for it's unconstitutionality, meant the State can not legislate to discriminate, so essentially, that means the State can write no law to exclude same sex marriage if hetero marriage exists....

so the ruling, didn't write law, but FORBADE them from writing laws that discriminate... is my understanding?

indirectly, unless the States abolish marriage altogether, same sex marriage, became legal

 

[Damaged Eagle]

[
If a state offers a service and benefits to hetero couples got to give them to gays.
.

But siblings can say the same thing. You don't understand what this thread is about.

They could say that before same sex marriage was legalized. Trying to limit marriage to one specific type is not a magic bullet...

...that was tried when you were only allowed to marry someone of your own race.

That's right. That's why the 14th Amendment and Civil Rights Act applies too all people if we are going to expand it to who can marry who because they are mature willing companions.

Therefore laws against marrying in groups, close relatives, and even out of species, should be done away with because they violate the 14th Amendment and Civil Rights Act which goes against the latest court ruling.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Zander]

People should be allowed to marry anyone or anything.

If the freak next door wants to marry a goat, why should I care? How do you think we got Anderson Pooperscooper?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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

Because marriage is a union between two consenting, adult, and equal partners not related to each other in a relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Given the return of this and similar moronic threads, clearly the Obergefell sitzkrieg is over.

By definition, marriage has always been and will always be between a man and a woman, not ever between two men, or between two women.

Even in cultures where marriage was allowed between close relatives, or without the consent of one partner, it was always still between a man and a woman. As much as marriage has varied, that has always been the one constant, unalterable defining characteristic; and it has basis in the biological and social purposes of marriage, which homosexual mockeries of marriage will never be able to fulfill.

 

[JoeMoma]

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

Because marriage is a union between two consenting, adult, and equal partners not related to each other in a relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Given the return of this and similar moronic threads, clearly the Obergefell sitzkrieg is over.

Up until recently in America, opposite sex was part of the definition of marriage. So using a definition to justify a ban on marriage of siblings is a major fail. Shouldn't gay brothers or sisters have the right to marry each other if they so choose?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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.

If ******* your sister was good enough for Noahs grandkids it should be good enough for us, right?

I'd love to marry my brother. He's rich!

Yep. Lots of incest in the bible. Not mention polygamy.

If the thumpers are going to try to use sharia law, they have to accept that others will to.

Seriously for a moment. This is a serious question to Christians. What does the bible say about ******* your sister?

Where in a marriage contract does it say you have to have sex with your partner in marriage?

*****CHUCKLE*****

You people who are anti gay marriage aren't convincing any of us liberals to support sibling marriage. Even we agree that's gross.

Where did I say that I'm anti-gay?

I'm not the one being a bigot here. That would be you since you choose to refuse to answer the question and attack me instead.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[FA_Q2]

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

Because marriage is a union between two consenting, adult, and equal partners not related to each other in a relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Given the return of this and similar moronic threads, clearly the Obergefell sitzkrieg is over.

And marriage was defined in several states as between one man and one woman yet that was struck down. Why?

Because marriage has been identified as a fundamental right.

Hence the cited bigoted reason for marriage denies such fundamental rights to some and should be changed.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

If ******* your sister was good enough for Noahs grandkids it should be good enough for us, right?

I'd love to marry my brother. He's rich!

Yep. Lots of incest in the bible. Not mention polygamy.

If the thumpers are going to try to use sharia law, they have to accept that others will to.

Seriously for a moment. This is a serious question to Christians. What does the bible say about ******* your sister?

Where in a marriage contract does it say you have to have sex with your partner in marriage?

*****CHUCKLE*****

You people who are anti gay marriage aren't convincing any of us liberals to support sibling marriage. Even we agree that's gross.

Why?

Now you only support equal access to rights when it is not gross to you?

And yet I bet you find that those on the right are bigots.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

There is an easy answer there - they do have a right to marry - end of story. They need to fight this in court, however.

It seems interesting though that so many that do not support gay marriage see the need to point this out. All it is going to do is make it happen faster.

 

[Billy000]

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.

lol if you want to campaign on allowing incest than go right ahead. It's your right to do so.

 

[Billy000]

Homosexuality is not illegal...incest is

Homosexuality used to be illegal in many states.

Lol key words : "used to"

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Your whine is superb. Law was made. Could gays marry before the ruling? Could they after? What law was changed? You can call it tripe but the truth never goes away.

Now, would you like to talk about corporations being people?

I have nothing to whine about as my side won the battle. What is the law number? Oh wait, it does exist as no law was created. You'll get over it but the meantime I do enjoy watching these hissy fits.

Then gays can't get married? I agree, no law was changed but gays can get married how in the hell does that work in liberal land? The SCOTUS made law with their ruling, that is fact.

No, that is merely your opinion that you are pretending to be fact. It isn't. I take solace in knowing that all across the nation gays are getting married and their isn't a damn thing you can do about it. Save crying on the web and shaking your fists.

Congrats to you and your same sex partner, I hope you will be happy. I don't give a crap if you do the bone dance with your brother's sphincter. But that does not change what the SCOTUS did. They made law. Gays couldn't get married then they could, the law changed, law was made that is all I am arguing.

You crowing about winning is in reality what most liberal issues are about, winning.

i think they struck down a law created by the state to basically ban same sex marriage.... by striking down this law for it's unconstitutionality, meant the State can not legislate to discriminate, so essentially, that means the State can write no law to exclude same sex marriage if hetero marriage exists....

so the ruling, didn't write law, but FORBADE them from writing laws that discriminate... is my understanding?

indirectly, unless the States abolish marriage altogether, same sex marriage, became legal

They struck down DOMA which opposed SSM, polygamy (in it's various forms), close relatives, etc,...

By striking it down using the argument that mature consenting adults should be allowed to marry, due to the 14th Amendment and Civil Rights Act.

Then the same ruing applies to all mature willing companions who fit that description and not just the specific grouping the court decides to grant special privileges too.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[FA_Q2]

Sure,why not. Children from consanguineous partnerings only have twice the rate of genetic disorders.....we could always use more problems!!

So you're saying that if there is a higher possibility of a genetic disorder being passed on they shouldn't be allowed to marry?

Then shouldn't it apply to people who have Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, inheritable diabetes, muscular dystrophy, etc... too?

I'm sure the Navajo nation, which has a inheritable diabetes incidence of over 50%, will be happy to hear they can't marry.

*****SMILE*****

Hence the utter failure of that line of reasoning.

It has been contended (and affirmed) that marriage no longer has anything to do with procreation.

That (and the above) renders the higher indecent of birth defects as rather moot. After all, I do not believe that it is even illegal to have an incestuous child - the marriage certainly is not the determining factor in that event.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

That's not it. They want an easier time adopting kids to molest. THINK

Why do you think the LGBpbWTF bunch is so intent on having such sick stuff as this and this taught to young children in school, starting in Kindergarten?

It certainly is apparent that a very likely motive is to condition young kids to be easier prey for all manner of sexual abuse.

 

[sealybobo]

If ******* your sister was good enough for Noahs grandkids it should be good enough for us, right?

I'd love to marry my brother. He's rich!

Yep. Lots of incest in the bible. Not mention polygamy.

If the thumpers are going to try to use sharia law, they have to accept that others will to.

Seriously for a moment. This is a serious question to Christians. What does the bible say about ******* your sister?

Where in a marriage contract does it say you have to have sex with your partner in marriage?

*****CHUCKLE*****

You people who are anti gay marriage aren't convincing any of us liberals to support sibling marriage. Even we agree that's gross.

Why?

Now you only support equal access to rights when it is not gross to you?

And yet I bet you find that those on the right are bigots.

Maybe any two consenting adults should be allowed. You are winning me over.

I could marry my father and get 85% of his Ford pension. I'm in!