It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Boss]

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.

Without articulating your religiously-based morality, please explain what you mean by "societal harm" here? Seems to me, people who are knocking down the doors of social morality by legalizing and legitimizing homosexual acts are not giving much of a shit about societal harm or what anyone thinks may be a harm to society. Those people are hooted down as religious zealots.

What's "reasonable" what's "standard"? You're sounding like the tight-asses who restricted porn back in the day... you'll know 'immoral' when you see it-- no need to define it. I'm sorry to inform you of this but society is not going to rely on you telling them what is okay and what isn't. You can have your opinion but you can't force your personal uptight standards on the rest of us. That's what this is all about, isn't it?

You all want to be total hypocrites... This behavior over here is okay because we say so and it doesn't really matter what you think... That behavior over there is wrong because we think it's wrong.

 

[Pop23]

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.

First, as I understand it, there are already some state laws regarding marriage between relatives in which at least one must be infertile for the marriage to occur.

Second, you avoid the question of whether there is a state interest in preventing marriages (and, I can only guess, sexual relations in general) between closely related family members. That would allow denial of the right to marry.

The rights of different groups have always been limited for various reasons. The voting and gun ownership rights of convicted felons comes to mind.

We are speaking as to if a law banning a relationship is good public policy or not, not if laws exist.

If the existence ad law was the point, same sex marriage would not be legal.

Is there a state interest in denying two hetro sisters the right to marry so they can assist in raising children? I can't see what that would be.

You?

 

[Pop23]

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.

Do you believe that a mother should be able to marry her son?

No, but that's simply an opinion

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Okay, so you start out saying consent is "anything but ethereal" and then go on to explain how it is but that doesn't really matter. There is no set national age of consent that we've all agreed to. An argument can be made that animals and dead people can't give consent therefore it can't be a parameter required. It's no different than saying gay people can marry if they can demonstrate the ability to reproduce. You are placing a demand that can't be met under any circumstance.

And this arbitrary age that we keep moving up... what's up with that? On what basis do we establish someone is suddenly more able to give consent the day after their birthday than the day before? People mature differently, maybe a 13 year old is more mature than an 18 year old... you don't know. Besides, if we remove "morality" (based on religion) from the equation, we see that in nature animals begin to breed when they become sexually mature. Why can't this be made the case with humans? ...Other than some morally-based idea and preconception that is frankly antiquated in this modern day and time?

It seems that suddenly, you perverts want to get all tight-assed and proselytize about your morals when it comes to "consent" and age of consent, or in applying consent where the parameter can't possibly be met. Do you really think future generations are going to give a shit about your moral hang ups? Haven't you made your case on this being more about rights than morals of society? It seems to be fine and dandy as long as you're going after what you want but you turn into a complete hypocrite when it comes to something you're uncomfortable with. Then, you want to break out the bibles and hymnals and talk about protecting our children from the evils of the world.... as if that has any damn thing to do with their rights as humans to give their own consent.

Twenty years ago, you couldn't legally consent to homosexual acts. So we see, legal consent can obviously be changed and it has been. In fact, it is far easier to change than the definition of a 3,000 year old tradition rooted in religious belief. And speaking of religious beliefs, what about Muslims who religiously believe in child marriage? Who are YOU to question their morals?

I am an American who lives in America where the age of consent keeps going up and I'm okay with that. It's pretty ironic that you would call gays "perverts" in a screed where you seem to be advocating lowering the age of consent.

You seem to think that society should judge what is moral by YOUR standards and so it must be very frustrating to be you. Just because you personally think something is immoral does not make it so. Societies change what they view as moral all the time. It was once moral for Americans to own other people. It's not anymore and I'm okay with that. It was once moral for old men to marry very young girls. It's not anymore and I'm okay with that. It was once considered immoral for a black man to wed a white woman. It's not anymore and I'm okay with that. It was once consindered immoral for a woman to marry a woman or a man to marry a man. It's not anymore and I'm okay with that one too. Guess what? Most of society is okay with those too. I get it, that pisses you off because YOU personally think gays are icky. Well, you're in the same boat as these folks were:

 

[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.

Without articulating your religiously-based morality, please explain what you mean by "societal harm" here? Seems to me, people who are knocking down the doors of social morality by legalizing and legitimizing homosexual acts are not giving much of a shit about societal harm or what anyone thinks may be a harm to society. Those people are hooted down as religious zealots.

What's "reasonable" what's "standard"? You're sounding like the tight-asses who restricted porn back in the day... you'll know 'immoral' when you see it-- no need to define it. I'm sorry to inform you of this but society is not going to rely on you telling them what is okay and what isn't. You can have your opinion but you can't force your personal uptight standards on the rest of us. That's what this is all about, isn't it?

You all want to be total hypocrites... This behavior over here is okay because we say so and it doesn't really matter what you think... That behavior over there is wrong because we think it's wrong.

It means exactly what it sounds like. See, when interracial couples and gay couples petitioned the courts for the recognition of their rights, those opposed to blacks marrying whites or gays marrying each other had to ascribe a societal harm in allowing these marriages. They couldn't do it. Millions of dollars and hundreds of lawyers could not come up with a valid reason to deny marriage to interracial or gay couples.

So, if you truly believe that you should be able to marry and animal, an inanimate object, a dead person, a child or multiple spouses, you can do exactly what gay couples and interracial couples did and petition the court. If those opposed cannot ascribe a societal harm and the court agrees, you win. Best of luck with your case/cases.

 

[Pop23]

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.

First, as I understand it, there are already some state laws regarding marriage between relatives in which at least one must be infertile for the marriage to occur.

Second, you avoid the question of whether there is a state interest in preventing marriages (and, I can only guess, sexual relations in general) between closely related family members. That would allow denial of the right to marry.

The rights of different groups have always been limited for various reasons. The voting and gun ownership rights of convicted felons comes to mind.

I failed to answer your last point. Sorry, got busy.

You state that the rights of different groups have always been limited for various reasons and that restricted gun ownership by felons come to mind.

True, we restrict those rights based on a conviction. We do not however restrict the felons neighbors this right.

My argument is that you want to restrict the rights of same sex hetro siblings (the neighbor) based on the potential act or actions of an opposite sex sibling couple (the felon). If that is good public policy, then the argument that only couples with the potential to procreate can also be good public policy.

 

[Seawytch]

I really didn't think it was possible for Pop's strawmen to get more incoherent. I was wrong.

 

[Faun]

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.

We've been over this already. Clearly, you don't learn.

You have it backwards... we're not denying one group of people a right .... we're treating similar groups equal under the law. No immediate family members may marry even though it may be safe for some of them.

 

[Faun]

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.

Okay, so you start out saying consent is "anything but ethereal" and then go on to explain how it is but that doesn't really matter. There is no set national age of consent that we've all agreed to. An argument can be made that animals and dead people can't give consent therefore it can't be a parameter required. It's no different than saying gay people can marry if they can demonstrate the ability to reproduce. You are placing a demand that can't be met under any circumstance.

And this arbitrary age that we keep moving up... what's up with that? On what basis do we establish someone is suddenly more able to give consent the day after their birthday than the day before? People mature differently, maybe a 13 year old is more mature than an 18 year old... you don't know. Besides, if we remove "morality" (based on religion) from the equation, we see that in nature animals begin to breed when they become sexually mature. Why can't this be made the case with humans? ...Other than some morally-based idea and preconception that is frankly antiquated in this modern day and time?

It seems that suddenly, you perverts want to get all tight-assed and proselytize about your morals when it comes to "consent" and age of consent, or in applying consent where the parameter can't possibly be met. Do you really think future generations are going to give a shit about your moral hang ups? Haven't you made your case on this being more about rights than morals of society? It seems to be fine and dandy as long as you're going after what you want but you turn into a complete hypocrite when it comes to something you're uncomfortable with. Then, you want to break out the bibles and hymnals and talk about protecting our children from the evils of the world.... as if that has any damn thing to do with their rights as humans to give their own consent.

Twenty years ago, you couldn't legally consent to homosexual acts. So we see, legal consent can obviously be changed and it has been. In fact, it is far easier to change than the definition of a 3,000 year old tradition rooted in religious belief. And speaking of religious beliefs, what about Muslims who religiously believe in child marriage? Who are YOU to question their morals?

It's amusing watching you call others a "pervert" in a thread you've dedicated to promoting the reasons why you think pedophilia and beastiality should be legal.

 

[Faun]

No matter how many times it's explained to you that gays did not have the right to marry the person they wanted to....

NO ONE has the right to marry the person they want to! If so, I'd be married to Kate Upton! But there are ALL KINDS of restrictions and conditions that apply to marriage, it's not a free-for-all where people just can marry whatever they hell they please! So no-- you simply do not have the right to marry the person you want to! NO ONE DOES! Get over it!

What you want to to do is redefine marriage to include your sexual behavior. Then claim you deserve a right to it. Now, we could also redefine "consent" and my right to marry Kate Upton can be upheld. And I am totally fine with passing a special law for Boss to be able to marry Kate Upton and for the SCOTUS to uphold that law against the wishes of anyone including Kate Upton. If this ever happens, by the way, I reserve the right to call you names and impugn your integrity for protesting it.

As always, your argument has no merit. How can it? You're fucking deranged, remember? You are legally allowed to marry Kate Upton. That's where your argument crumbles to dust. It's not the law that's preventing you from marrying Kate Upton .... it's Kate Upton preventing you from marrying Kate Upton. And why would she want to marry someone who fights for pedophilia and beastiality to be legal?

 

[Pop23]

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.

We've been over this already. Clearly, you don't learn.

You have it backwards... we're not denying one group of people a right .... we're treating similar groups equal under the law. No immediate family members may marry even though it may be safe for some of them.

So homosexuals were treated equally under the law, so this actually isn't a civil rights issue.

Thanks.

 

[Pop23]

No matter how many times it's explained to you that gays did not have the right to marry the person they wanted to....

NO ONE has the right to marry the person they want to! If so, I'd be married to Kate Upton! But there are ALL KINDS of restrictions and conditions that apply to marriage, it's not a free-for-all where people just can marry whatever they hell they please! So no-- you simply do not have the right to marry the person you want to! NO ONE DOES! Get over it!

What you want to to do is redefine marriage to include your sexual behavior. Then claim you deserve a right to it. Now, we could also redefine "consent" and my right to marry Kate Upton can be upheld. And I am totally fine with passing a special law for Boss to be able to marry Kate Upton and for the SCOTUS to uphold that law against the wishes of anyone including Kate Upton. If this ever happens, by the way, I reserve the right to call you names and impugn your integrity for protesting it.

As always, your argument has no merit. How can it? You're fucking deranged, remember? You are legally allowed to marry Kate Upton. That's where your argument crumbles to dust. It's not the law that's preventing you from marrying Kate Upton .... it's Kate Upton preventing you from marrying Kate Upton. And why would she want to marry someone who fights for pedophilia and beastiality to be legal?

So what are the damages that Boss should recieve for the denial of his civil right to marry anyone he wants? Kate Upton is rich, Boss, I want 10% of what you get!

 

[Pop23]

I really didn't think it was possible for Pop's strawmen to get more incoherent. I was wrong.

You sleep with members of your own sex, no wonder why you don't understand common sense?

 

[Faun]

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.

We've been over this already. Clearly, you don't learn.

You have it backwards... we're not denying one group of people a right .... we're treating similar groups equal under the law. No immediate family members may marry even though it may be safe for some of them.

So homosexuals were treated equally under the law, so this actually isn't a civil rights issue.

Thanks.

They were not treated equally under the law. There was no compelling argument to deny them their right to marry the person they loved. There is a compelling reason to deny immediate family members the right to marry. And though it might be safe for some, such as same-sex siblings, allowing them to marry but not others would violate the equal protection clause.

 

[Faun]

No matter how many times it's explained to you that gays did not have the right to marry the person they wanted to....

NO ONE has the right to marry the person they want to! If so, I'd be married to Kate Upton! But there are ALL KINDS of restrictions and conditions that apply to marriage, it's not a free-for-all where people just can marry whatever they hell they please! So no-- you simply do not have the right to marry the person you want to! NO ONE DOES! Get over it!

What you want to to do is redefine marriage to include your sexual behavior. Then claim you deserve a right to it. Now, we could also redefine "consent" and my right to marry Kate Upton can be upheld. And I am totally fine with passing a special law for Boss to be able to marry Kate Upton and for the SCOTUS to uphold that law against the wishes of anyone including Kate Upton. If this ever happens, by the way, I reserve the right to call you names and impugn your integrity for protesting it.

As always, your argument has no merit. How can it? You're fucking deranged, remember? You are legally allowed to marry Kate Upton. That's where your argument crumbles to dust. It's not the law that's preventing you from marrying Kate Upton .... it's Kate Upton preventing you from marrying Kate Upton. And why would she want to marry someone who fights for pedophilia and beastiality to be legal?

So what are the damages that Boss should recieve for the denial of his civil right to marry anyone he wants? Kate Upton is rich, Boss, I want 10% of what you get!

None. Again, it's not the law saying he can't marry her -- it's Kate Upton saying he can't marry her. He could sue her though, if he wants to.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Reader, if you've ever wondered what the Mental Disorder that presents as sexual deviancy looks like, in specific rhetorical terms... below is a classic example of it:

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.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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

Huh... That is what is known as objective ethics.

The US is presently governed by what are known as Relativists... and as the recent federal licensing of Degeneracy recently demonstrated, Relativism is the rejection of the objectivity which is essential to sound ethical reasoning.

The potential downsides of such are incalculable, but the subjective need of degenerates, is primary and stands above the everything from the common good, to the very viability of the culture itself.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

They were not treated equally under the law.

If "they" refers to sexual deviants in the United States, the statement is false. As there was no inequality to be found anywhere with regard to such, that was not predicated directly upon their degenerate behavior.

There was no compelling argument to deny them their right to marry the person they loved.

Again, this is a false statement. Sexual deviants were not being denied the right to marry, as long as they applied for such with a person of the distinct gender. As Nature designed the human species with two distinct, but complementing Genders, with each specifically designed to JOIN WITH the other. Humanity's best interests is served through the recognition and adherence to nature's law, as such serves as the guideline in sustain human viability. Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

There is a compelling reason to deny immediate family members the right to marry.

Yes... there is. And that interests is the same as that stated above: Sustaining the viability of the species through sound standards which recognize and respect the laws of nature.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Do you believe that a mother should be able to marry her son?

No, but that's simply an opinion

In your opinion- why not?

 

[Syriusly]

I really didn't think it was possible for Pop's strawmen to get more incoherent. I was wrong.

You sleep with members of your own sex, no wonder why you don't understand common sense?

And here Pop just shows what is at the root of all of this- his bigotry towards homosexuals.