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

[Syriusly]

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..

Well I don't know what state you live in- but in every state I know of, it is still illegal for Shootie to marry his sister.

But- if he really thinks he should be able to- or if you think you should be able to marry your sister- you can try- and then when refused you have the right to sue- and come up with your argument as to why you should be able to marry your sister.

Let us know how that turns out.

So you're saying that the courts violated the 14th Amendment and Civil Rights Act by granting special privileges to a specific minority group over others and that you're fine with it?

No- I didn't say that.

Perhaps you could provide the quote that made you think that?

 

[Syriusly]

[
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.

I think we all do- this thread is about your extreme ignorance about the Supreme Court and their ruling on state bans on gay marriage.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You have a really sick view of marriage.

That's a very difficult statement to take seriously, when it comes from someone who believes that there is any vestige of legitimacy to immoral homosexual mockeries of marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

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

You don't understand the role of SCOTUS.

SCOTUS are judges not legislators. And they're not even consistent legislators. If they say queer marriage must be allowed then they have to say the same of sibling marriage. THINK

No- and that you believe this just demonstrates that you have never actually read the Supreme Courts ruling.

 

[Syriusly]

You have a really sick view of marriage.

That's a very difficult statement to take seriously, when it comes from someone who believes that there is any vestige of legitimacy to immoral homosexual mockeries of marriage.

Do you also believe that marriage is only for the purpose of procuring children through adoption for molestation?

That is what I call a sick view of marriage- if you believe that is the purpose of marriage- then I think you have a sick view of marriage also.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

why does it matter that they were unelected? that's the way we choose our supreme court justices. always has been. what's the problem with that?

A legitimate government, in accordance with this nation's founding principles, has to be accountable to the people who are governed, and subject to their will.

The courts are not accountable to the people, therefore, it is not legitimate that they should have nearly as much power over the people as the have usurped.

Nonsense.

A legitimate government, in accordance with this Nation's founding principles, must abide by the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law – acknowledging and respecting the rights of each citizen residing in that government's jurisdiction; and failing that, the people, those disadvantaged by government, may seek relief in Federal court.

The courts function as part of the government, at the behest of the people, likewise subject to the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, Articles III and VI of the Constitution, and the original intent of the Founding Generation who sought to create a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy – citizens subject solely to the rule of law, not men.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

You never actually read any of the courts arguments- did you?

Because that was never the argument before the courts.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

You never actually read any of the courts arguments- did you?

Because that was never the argument before the courts.

One of the SCOTUS judges tried to make it out like that should one of the issues. But that was just baiting/fishing... an exercise in futility. I think it was Scalia.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Do you also believe that marriage is only for the purpose of procuring children through adoption for molestation?

That is what I call a sick view of marriage- if you believe that is the purpose of marriage- then I think you have a sick view of marriage also.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

it certainly is apparent that homophobic bigots like to call homosexuals pedophiles.

Even though of course- the vast majority of child molestation victims are girls- molested by men.

And homophobes like yourself don't give a damn about them- or any other child molestation victims.

Except to attack homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

Do you also believe that marriage is only for the purpose of procuring children through adoption for molestation?

That is what I call a sick view of marriage- if you believe that is the purpose of marriage- then I think you have a sick view of marriage also.

View attachment 50138

So should I take that response to mean you agree with Shooter that the only reason for marriage is for the purpose of procuring children through adoption for molestation?

 

[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..

Well I don't know what state you live in- but in every state I know of, it is still illegal for Shootie to marry his sister.

But- if he really thinks he should be able to- or if you think you should be able to marry your sister- you can try- and then when refused you have the right to sue- and come up with your argument as to why you should be able to marry your sister.

Let us know how that turns out.

So you're saying that the courts violated the 14th Amendment and Civil Rights Act by granting special privileges to a specific minority group over others and that you're fine with it?

No- I didn't say that.

Perhaps you could provide the quote that made you think that?

Did the Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, and other minority groups have to go to court after the blacks won their rights in a court of law?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[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.

You never actually read any of the courts arguments- did you?

Because that was never the argument before the courts.

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'm sure all the same arguments were used.

Which means that anyone who doesn't support my position is discriminating against all the rest of the mature willing companions who desire to be married to each other.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[candycorn]

Inbreeding explains a lot of conservative views come to think of it.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Inbreeding explains a lot of conservative views come to think of it.

Funny..... I have the same thoughts about progressive liberals.

*****CHUCKLE******

 

[candycorn]

Inbreeding explains a lot of conservative views come to think of it.

Funny..... I have the same thoughts about progressive liberals.

*****CHUCKLE******

Based on what?

Liberals care about others.

Conservatives only care about other whites, other protestants, other so-called "makers", and keeping anyone who isn't white, straight, protestant, and male in "their place". Basically its as if the entire conserve-hate-ive Klan is all one inbred family.

Liberals care about others.

 

[candycorn]

Anyway, as far as the question in the OP is concerned, I don't have a problem with two siblings getting married as long as they are consenting adults.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Inbreeding explains a lot of conservative views come to think of it.

Funny..... I have the same thoughts about progressive liberals.

*****CHUCKLE******

Based on what?

Liberals care about others.

Conservatives only care about other whites, other protestants, other so-called "makers", and keeping anyone who isn't white, straight, protestant, and male in "their place". Basically its as if the entire conserve-hate-ive Klan is all one inbred family.

Liberals care about others.

I'm not seeing much care about the rights and needs of other mature willing companions from the supposedly enlightened progressive liberals posting in this thread.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Anyway, as far as the question in the OP is concerned, I don't have a problem with two siblings getting married as long as they are consenting adults.

Then you agree that until all mature willing companions are allowed to marry as they choose that the court decision favoring SSM was discriminating and bigoted.

*****SMILE*****

 

[candycorn]

Anyway, as far as the question in the OP is concerned, I don't have a problem with two siblings getting married as long as they are consenting adults.

Then you agree that until all mature willing companions are allowed to marry as they choose that the court decision favoring SSM was discriminating and bigoted.

*****SMILE*****

Not sure where you got that moronic conclusion. But being a conservative pin head, your tin-foil hat is probably cutting off circulation to what was once a functioning brain.

The court decided on a case. I agree with the ruling.

In a hypothetical case if it were two siblings, I would hope the court would strike down any laws preventing siblings from getting married.

The same would go for a parent and child if the two were adults and consented to the union.

Why? Because its none of my business what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home.