Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
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.
Do you?
Obviously marriages between two people are far, far more common- so by pure numbers the numbers will be higher- but are you saying that there is no greater tendency regarding abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net by percentage for polygamous marriages?
Well you best tell that judge.......
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.
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.
Do you?
Obviously marriages between two people are far, far more common- so by pure numbers the numbers will be higher- but are you saying that there is no greater tendency regarding abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net by percentage for polygamous marriages?
Well you best tell that judge.......
Polygany in and of itself doesn't threaten anyone or anything. What does is religious cults who practice it. But banning the marital practice because some cults abuse it isn't far or just. Be like forbidding all homosexuals from adoption because a few molested their adopted children.
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.
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
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
You simply deflect. Is a non sexual hetro same sex sibling marriage any more damaging to society than any same sex marriage?
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.
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.
Gay men just have to visit certain parks?
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.
You simply deflect. Is a non sexual hetro same sex sibling marriage any more damaging to society than any same sex marriage?
No- I am tired of you trotting out your straw man, attempting to derail threads with your obsession over incest.
One has nothing to do with another- I will just continue to point out that it is your straw man and quote the court on the subject
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
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.
Gay men just have to visit certain parks?
Straight men can just visit their palms.
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.
You simply deflect. Is a non sexual hetro same sex sibling marriage any more damaging to society than any same sex marriage?
No- I am tired of you trotting out your straw man, attempting to derail threads with your obsession over incest.
One has nothing to do with another- I will just continue to point out that it is your straw man and quote the court on the subject
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
So I again will ask the question, see if you can answer. What societal damaged is caused by two hetro sisters marrying so they can better raise their children.
I know it's hard to think for yourself, it's not that hard to do.
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.
Ok, again a great post, but now we must limit the rights of one group because another group has an ability the other group does not have?
You understand that argument recently failed judicial muster.
The definition of consent, as far as the law is concerned, is anything but ethereal. It's very clear. Please learn it before you run afoul of the law.
Hint: children, animals and dead people cannot give legal consent.
You're right that the concept of consent as it relates to age HAS changed...it keeps going up thankfully.
