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

[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.

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?

 

[Rotagilla]

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.

people who understand how genetics works also understand why allowing close family members to marry is a bad idea.

 

[bripat9643]

Homosexuality is not illegal...incest is

Why should incest be illegal of homosexuality isn't?

 

[bripat9643]

"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.

Says who? That's the self-serving homo definition.

 

[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*****

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.

I'm and independent with a conservative lean so my brain is functioning far better than your pathetic attempts at attempting to belittle me in your supposedly enlightened progressive wisdom.

I've given my reasons for why the ruling was discriminating and bigoted throughout this thread.

If you can't read then I suggest you learn to do so because it gets tiresome having to repeat it over and over to those who might have ADHD.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[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.

View attachment 50140

I'm and independent with a conservative lean so my brain is functioning far better than your pathetic attempts at attempting to belittle me in your supposedly enlightened progressive wisdom.

I've given my reasons for why the ruling was discriminating and bigoted throughout this thread.

If you can't read then I suggest you learn to do so because it gets tiresome having to repeat it over and over to those who might have ADHD.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Your opinions do not interest me.

Rulings cannot be bigoted since rulings only have to do with the case in front of them and the constitutionality of the verdicts of the lower courts.

Art Bell may have some interest in studying you however.

PS: Stop posting needless videos. You're eating bandwidth that could be better used by others.

 

[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.

people who understand how genetics works also understand why allowing close family members to marry is a bad idea.

This has already been covered..... However if you think we all need to go over it again please do attempt to make your point.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Rotagilla]

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.

people who understand how genetics works also understand why allowing close family members to marry is a bad idea.

This has already been covered..... However if you think we all need to go over it again please do attempt to make your point.

*****SMILE*****

I understand it has been covered...apparently with no effect...

What's it to you? You trying out for "moderator" or something?

 

[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*****

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.

View attachment 50140

I'm and independent with a conservative lean so my brain is functioning far better than your pathetic attempts at attempting to belittle me in your supposedly enlightened progressive wisdom.

I've given my reasons for why the ruling was discriminating and bigoted throughout this thread.

If you can't read then I suggest you learn to do so because it gets tiresome having to repeat it over and over to those who might have ADHD.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Your opinions do not interest me.

Rulings cannot be bigoted since rulings only have to do with the case in front of them and the constitutionality of the verdicts of the lower courts.

Art Bell may have some interest in studying you however.

PS: Stop posting needless videos. You're eating bandwidth that could be better used by others.

Then laws and rulings that lead to the 14th Amendment and Civil Rights Act should have only applied to the blacks if you desire to take that position. Which means that the other minority groups should have taken their cases up to the courts also. This didn't happen.

Therefore the court ruling should apply to all mature willing companions who wish to form a marriage group since the case argued by the SSM crowd was that they were mature companions seeking the same rights as others.

*****CHUCKLE*****





PS: Art wouldn't know what to think because his brain works about as fast as yours.

PSS: I don't care if you have a weight control problem and the elastic around your waist keeps breaking.

 

[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.

people who understand how genetics works also understand why allowing close family members to marry is a bad idea.

This has already been covered..... However if you think we all need to go over it again please do attempt to make your point.

*****SMILE*****

I understand it has been covered...apparently with no effect...

What's it to you? You trying out for "moderator" or something?

If you want to go over it again that's fine. Give us your points on the issue.

As for being a moderator... No! I have to much fun doing what I'm doing.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Rotagilla]

No thanks..pearls before swine and all..carry on.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

No thanks..pearls before swine and all..carry on.

That's your choice.

Until the scales of justice say that marriage is for heterosexual nuclear marriage or for all mature willing companions being allowed to marry as they choose my argument stands.

I'm fine with the decision going either way so long as the scales are balanced.

That should make people question my motives instead of simply attacking me.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[candycorn]

Then laws and rulings that lead to the 14th Amendment and Civil Rights Act should have only applied to the blacks if you desire to take that position. Which means that the other minority groups should have taken their cases up to the courts also. This didn't happen.

Therefore the court ruling should apply to all mature willing companions who wish to form a marriage group since the case argued by the SSM crowd was that they were mature companions seeking the same rights as others.
.

The court decided it would apply to everyone and save us all the time and trouble of some **** stain like yourself coming here and making such an idiotic claim in an attempt to hold on to some inalienable right to discriminate.

 

[Rotagilla]

No thanks..pearls before swine and all..carry on.

That's your choice.

Until the scales of justice say that marriage is for heterosexual nuclear marriage or for all mature willing companions being allowed to marry as they choose my argument stands.

I'm fine with the decision going either way so long as the scales are balanced.

That should make people question my motives instead of simply attacking me.

*****CHUCKLE*****

whatever... the fanboy music videos in every post is a comical touch.... rawk on dewd

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Homosexuality is not illegal...incest is

There was a time when people made the argument that homosexuality is illegal because homosexuals are insane, since only someone insane would commit a crime like homosexuality. It's interesting to see that you're continuing this proud legal tradition.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Liberals "care" more......

Too ******* comical

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Liberals "care" more......

Liberals seem to have a different understanding of what it means to “care”.

Conservatives would define it by the willing to give of one's own time, money,and other resources, to help those in need, or to otherwise make a serious effort to solve or mitigate a problem.

Liberals, it seems, think that they can claim credit for “caring” if they can get the force of government used to take resources from others to be used toward whatever purpose it is that they claim to “care” about, or even for simply making meaningless symbolic gestures that show how much they “care” without doing a damn thing to actually help anyone. “Raising awareness” is, perhaps, the most definitive form of wrong-wing “caring”.

It seems that liberals are very often more concerned about showing how much they “care” about a given issue than they are about actually doing anything meaningful about that issue.

 

[Obiwan]

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.

people who understand how genetics works also understand why allowing close family members to marry is a bad idea.

Of course, Candyass likes the idea, since it would give us our next generation of Democrats!!!

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

It's pretty simple. Rights are limited. If a right harms other people then it's not protected.

We know that children produced by siblings can have deformities, and it would be unfair for any child to be produced like this.

Also they're already related. They don't need a marriage to be related to each other.

 

[sealybobo]

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

Exactly the same thing that it says about one man f***ing another man. In the same chapter, even.

Leviticus 18:9,22

9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.

·
·
·​

22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.​

So stop asking us to marry your sister. See? Your bible isn't always wrong.