It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Seawytch]

Sadly, you remain too fucking deranged to comprehend gays were denied marrying the person of their choice.

That claim can be made by everyone. Whats your point?

Key words for you; reasonable person standard and societal harm.

Can you then explain how hetro sisters marrying for the rights and benefits you claim you need, harm society? Please try to do so as a reasonable person.

They already have the familial tie that civil marriage provides.

You can't restrict familial marriage to same sex siblings.

 

[Pop23]

Sadly, you remain too fucking deranged to comprehend gays were denied marrying the person of their choice.

That claim can be made by everyone. Whats your point?

Key words for you; reasonable person standard and societal harm.

Can you then explain how hetro sisters marrying for the rights and benefits you claim you need, harm society? Please try to do so as a reasonable person.

I believe I've brought it up in this thread, but familial relationships may have a stronger possibility of positions of power, of excessive influence by one party over another. I think it applies more to parents or grandparents and children, but the argument might be made that there is too great a danger of one family member using their influence over another to force them into a sexual/romantic relationship.

It is a valid question as to what reason, other than possible genetic issues with children, adult siblings should be prevented from marrying. It could end up in court at some point. I don't think parent/child relationships are likely to get legal legitimacy for the reason I stated, but it's possible for siblings.

Great post. I appreciate it.

It seems very odd, that a group as unconventional as homosexuals would bring such fervent arguments about others that may want unconventional marriage.

A hetro same sex sibling couple may simply want the rights afforded them that other married couples have. Is that any more odd than a same sex sexually active couple? I'm not seeing it. Because one couple would want to have sex and the other would not, one couple is superior to the other? I'm not seeing anywhere in the law that even implies that sex is required. You?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Sadly, you remain too fucking deranged to comprehend gays were denied marrying the person of their choice.

That claim can be made by everyone. Whats your point?

Key words for you; reasonable person standard and societal harm.

Can you then explain how hetro sisters marrying for the rights and benefits you claim you need, harm society? Please try to do so as a reasonable person.

I believe I've brought it up in this thread, but familial relationships may have a stronger possibility of positions of power, of excessive influence by one party over another. I think it applies more to parents or grandparents and children, but the argument might be made that there is too great a danger of one family member using their influence over another to force them into a sexual/romantic relationship.

It is a valid question as to what reason, other than possible genetic issues with children, adult siblings should be prevented from marrying. It could end up in court at some point. I don't think parent/child relationships are likely to get legal legitimacy for the reason I stated, but it's possible for siblings.

Great post. I appreciate it.

It seems very odd, that a group as unconventional as homosexuals would bring such fervent arguments about others that may want unconventional marriage.

A hetro same sex sibling couple may simply want the rights afforded them that other married couples have. Is that any more odd than a same sex sexually active couple? I'm not seeing it. Because one couple would want to have sex and the other would not, one couple is superior to the other? I'm not seeing anywhere in the law that even implies that sex is required. You?

More precedent to allow such incestuous unions since many states already allow other incestuous unions as with uncle-niece and first cousins. RI, NY, NJ to name a few.

 

[Pop23]

Sadly, you remain too fucking deranged to comprehend gays were denied marrying the person of their choice.

That claim can be made by everyone. Whats your point?

Key words for you; reasonable person standard and societal harm.

Can you then explain how hetro sisters marrying for the rights and benefits you claim you need, harm society? Please try to do so as a reasonable person.

They already have the familial tie that civil marriage provides.

You can't restrict familial marriage to same sex siblings.

So, is there a point?

The reason family members were not allowed to marry (and let's stick to siblings at this point) was that intercourse could create a defective bloodline and defective children. Obviously when you remove the need for marriage being between a man and a woman, then obviously that part of the law is absurd between two same sex siblings, regardless of sexual orientation.

 

[Pop23]

That claim can be made by everyone. Whats your point?

Key words for you; reasonable person standard and societal harm.

Can you then explain how hetro sisters marrying for the rights and benefits you claim you need, harm society? Please try to do so as a reasonable person.

I believe I've brought it up in this thread, but familial relationships may have a stronger possibility of positions of power, of excessive influence by one party over another. I think it applies more to parents or grandparents and children, but the argument might be made that there is too great a danger of one family member using their influence over another to force them into a sexual/romantic relationship.

It is a valid question as to what reason, other than possible genetic issues with children, adult siblings should be prevented from marrying. It could end up in court at some point. I don't think parent/child relationships are likely to get legal legitimacy for the reason I stated, but it's possible for siblings.

Great post. I appreciate it.

It seems very odd, that a group as unconventional as homosexuals would bring such fervent arguments about others that may want unconventional marriage.

A hetro same sex sibling couple may simply want the rights afforded them that other married couples have. Is that any more odd than a same sex sexually active couple? I'm not seeing it. Because one couple would want to have sex and the other would not, one couple is superior to the other? I'm not seeing anywhere in the law that even implies that sex is required. You?

More precedent to allow such incestuous unions since many states already allow other incestuous unions as with uncle-niece and first cousins. RI, NY, NJ to name a few.

Could you supply a link to uncle-niece, I am not aware of that. As far as first cousins go, you realize they have to prove they are infertile, of course if they were same sex cousins proving such would be absurd.

Agreed?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Key words for you; reasonable person standard and societal harm.

Can you then explain how hetro sisters marrying for the rights and benefits you claim you need, harm society? Please try to do so as a reasonable person.

I believe I've brought it up in this thread, but familial relationships may have a stronger possibility of positions of power, of excessive influence by one party over another. I think it applies more to parents or grandparents and children, but the argument might be made that there is too great a danger of one family member using their influence over another to force them into a sexual/romantic relationship.

It is a valid question as to what reason, other than possible genetic issues with children, adult siblings should be prevented from marrying. It could end up in court at some point. I don't think parent/child relationships are likely to get legal legitimacy for the reason I stated, but it's possible for siblings.

Great post. I appreciate it.

It seems very odd, that a group as unconventional as homosexuals would bring such fervent arguments about others that may want unconventional marriage.

A hetro same sex sibling couple may simply want the rights afforded them that other married couples have. Is that any more odd than a same sex sexually active couple? I'm not seeing it. Because one couple would want to have sex and the other would not, one couple is superior to the other? I'm not seeing anywhere in the law that even implies that sex is required. You?

More precedent to allow such incestuous unions since many states already allow other incestuous unions as with uncle-niece and first cousins. RI, NY, NJ to name a few.

Could you supply a link to uncle-niece, I am not aware of that. As far as first cousins go, you realize they have to prove they are infertile, of course if they were same sex cousins proving such would be absurd.

Agreed?

15-1-4

"TITLE 15
Domestic Relations
CHAPTER 15-1
Persons Eligible to Marry
SECTION 15-1-4

§ 15-1-4 Marriages of kindred allowed by Jewish religion. – The provisions of §§ 15-1-2 and 15-1-3 shall not extend to, or in any way affect, any marriage which shall be solemnized among the Jewish people, within the degrees of affinity or consanguinity allowed by their religion. "

NY State blesses ‘incest' marriage between uncle, niece

"The state’s highest court has toppled a cultural taboo — legalizing a degree of incest, at least between an uncle and niece — in a unanimous ruling.

While the laws against “parent-child and brother-sister marriages . . . are grounded in the almost universal horror with which such marriages are viewed . . . there is no comparably strong objection to uncle-niece marriages,” Tuesday’s ruling reads.

Judge Robert Smith of the Court of Appeals wrote that such unions were lawful in New York until 1893 and Rhode Island allows them."

 

[Syriusly]

Sadly, you remain too fucking deranged to comprehend gays were denied marrying the person of their choice.

That claim can be made by everyone. Whats your point?

Key words for you; reasonable person standard and societal harm.

Can you then explain how hetro sisters marrying for the rights and benefits you claim you need, harm society? Please try to do so as a reasonable person.

They already have the familial tie that civil marriage provides.

You can't restrict familial marriage to same sex siblings.

So, is there a point?

The reason family members were not allowed to marry (and let's stick to siblings at this point) was that intercourse could create a defective bloodline and defective children. Obviously when you remove the need for marriage being between a man and a woman, then obviously that part of the law is absurd between two same sex siblings, regardless of sexual orientation.

You are back to trying to make another thread about your obsession with incest.

And you drag out the same old arguments- including telling us 'the reason' family members were not allowed to marry- once again ignoring ANY other reason.

Because that is not why you drag your straw man out.

Over and over and over.

If you want to be able to marry your sister or mother- you have the same right to go to court to demand your 'rights' as anyone else.

Doesn't mean that anyone will agree with you.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 118

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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.

Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 118

See the same issues of abuse in traditional marriage as with polyganous though. Arranged and forced marriages like.

 

[Mertex]

In the end, the constitution very correctly declares that marriage is a fundamental right of humans

funny, I don't find the word marriage in the Constitution. Can you please point out to me the Article and Section where you're reading this?

Funny you should mention that it isn't in the Constitution.........then where do you get the idea that marriage is only between a man and a woman, if it is not in the Constitution?

I don't know, maybe 3,000 years of Western culture where it has always been something between males and females? Or... as it is legally defined in any of the 50 States, who have the 10th Amendment power to address these changes or so-called "rights" to the satisfaction of their people through the ballot box?

Back in Bible times men had more than one wife........are you okay with that because that was the way it used to be? And, as far as your claim that it is legally defined in any of the 50 states......you may need to take a civics class....the Supreme Court laws trump any state laws, whether they like it or not.

 

[Mertex]

I call you a homophobe for proclaiming that you believe homosexuals will try to pass laws allowing them to force you to have sex with them.

Okay, I call bullshit. No one is that fucking stupid. You have to have misread his statement or something.

No...he truly believes it. I think he is motivated by fear. And homophobes deny that their phobia has anything to do with fear....that statement he made says a lot more about his fear than anything else he may say.

 

[Mertex]

That means The People get to decide to what extent it is or is not a "right" in their realm of society (aka: State). It's not FOR the court to decide.

And the "People" have decided, dummy....that is why the Supreme Court made it legal. You and your minority group of homophobes have no say-so anymore. You can try and do what Kim Davis does, and will only end up in jail, but that is definitely you all's choice.

And, I repeat.......the Supreme Court trumps State....you lose.

 

[Mertex]

And what is the states compelling reason in the denial of same sex heterosexual siblings the rights afforded everyone else?

Geez, a simple biology class will help you understand why.....it is call inbreeding. Of course, if a person doesn't care if they risk bringing disabled/deformed children into the world, they don't have to marry to do so, they can go ahead and have sex with their brother/sister to their heart's content. It would be inhumane for society to allow it, but if you feel strongly that it should be allowed, write your Congressman.

Inbreeding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mertex]

That claim can be made by everyone. Whats your point?

No it can't. Maybe at one time a black couldn't marry a white, but that's been done away with. What is your point?

 

[Montrovant]

Sadly, you remain too fucking deranged to comprehend gays were denied marrying the person of their choice.

That claim can be made by everyone. Whats your point?

Key words for you; reasonable person standard and societal harm.

Can you then explain how hetro sisters marrying for the rights and benefits you claim you need, harm society? Please try to do so as a reasonable person.

I believe I've brought it up in this thread, but familial relationships may have a stronger possibility of positions of power, of excessive influence by one party over another. I think it applies more to parents or grandparents and children, but the argument might be made that there is too great a danger of one family member using their influence over another to force them into a sexual/romantic relationship.

It is a valid question as to what reason, other than possible genetic issues with children, adult siblings should be prevented from marrying. It could end up in court at some point. I don't think parent/child relationships are likely to get legal legitimacy for the reason I stated, but it's possible for siblings.

Great post. I appreciate it.

It seems very odd, that a group as unconventional as homosexuals would bring such fervent arguments about others that may want unconventional marriage.

A hetro same sex sibling couple may simply want the rights afforded them that other married couples have. Is that any more odd than a same sex sexually active couple? I'm not seeing it. Because one couple would want to have sex and the other would not, one couple is superior to the other? I'm not seeing anywhere in the law that even implies that sex is required. You?

No, I don't see sex being a requirement for any marriage.

As Seawytch pointed out, sibling marriage could not be limited to same sex couples. However, if it were restricted to infertile couples, I could see at least the possibility of it becoming legalized, were some couples to take it to court.

There is also the Wisconsin case Syriusly quoted from bringing up possible legal reasons for restricting incestuous marriages.

So while the possibility may be real, I don't know that it is at all likely. Nor do I think it is going to come to pass based on same sex marriage bans being lifted.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I call you a homophobe for proclaiming that you believe homosexuals will try to pass laws allowing them to force you to have sex with them.

Okay, I call bullshit. No one is that fucking stupid. You have to have misread his statement or something.

No...he truly believes it. I think he is motivated by fear. And homophobes deny that their phobia has anything to do with fear....that statement he made says a lot more about his fear than anything else he may say.

Think straight men hate gay ones because gay guys can have sex pretty much at will. Straight men have to beg and pay for it.

 

[Mertex]

You don't have the right to define marriage for everybody,

Herein is your problem.....nobody is trying to define your marriage, by the same token, you don't have the right to define the marriage of others. See, it works both ways....but you have a one-track mind and will probably never get it.

 

[Mertex]

Why, shouldn't everyone get to marry the one(s) you wish? That is the claim afterall.

No, the key word is "consent" and it has already been explained to you that animals and children and dead people are not able to consent. So quit misconstruing the claim. Homosexuals can't marry someone that doesn't want to marry them........geez, I didn't think it was really that difficult to comprehend.

 

[Mertex]

Why must this devolve into a left/right thing? This issue is not about political affiliation. Sure, liberals and conservatives in this country may tend to fall on one side or the other where same sex marriage is concerned, but it's far from a universal thing. I've seen self identified conservatives on this site support SSM and self identified liberals rail against it.

It isn't a right/left issue. There are plenty of Republican/conservatives that are homosexuals. I don't understand why they would support a party where the majority of its members oppose and basically hate homosexuals, but that is not for me to answer. I'm sure there are many Democrats that are totally opposed to homosexuality, too.

But, liberals? By the very definition of "liberal" I would find it difficult to believe they would be against it, unless they are only economically liberal but actually socially conservative. I wouldn't classify someone in that category as a "Liberal".....I'm economically conservative and socially liberal, and I don't classify myself as a Liberal, even though my political opponents label me a "liberal" based on that one thing.

Log Cabin Republicans

 

[EverCurious]

I get called a lefty all the time (which is always amusing since my political affiliations are very clearly noted in my sig.) heh