It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Faun]

Who knows what that even means? I'm nrith
If that were true, and it's really your delusion, brothers would have been allowed to marry each other all along.

Ya see ... this is where your delusion crumbles in the stark face of reality.

Are you really that stupid?

All family members that could marry were prohibited because marriage was between a man and a woman. Men procreate with Women (something that may surprise you) and making all family members ineligible was equitable. Now, we have eligible partners that can't possibly procreate, so the prohibition is inequitable and a violation of equal protection.

So, tell me Faun, what is the compelling state interest in denying this right to marry to heterosexual brothers?

You said marriage isn't about sex. So why have brothers not been allowed to marry their sisters?

This is your argument; maybe that's why it sounds so stupid to you?

Because it was an exvluded pairing that applied equally to all eligible couples. The reason was to do everything possible to stop defective bloodlines (at least goverment licensed defective bloodlines)

The equitable application of the law, for a specific purpose made such a prohibition meet equal protection qualifications.

Now it's absurd, since brothers cannot procreate with each other and now same sex couples are allowed to marry.

Sorry dude, your side changed the single qualification that made this possible.

Aren't you proud?

Why would I be proud that you're retarded?

Again, you said sex isn't a requirement of marriage. To that end, you even suggested two brothers should be allowed to marry each other because they could be heterosexual.

The same holds true for opposite gendered siblings. Yet they still couldn't marry even when marriage was limited to a man and a woman.

You can't even see the fatal gaping head wound in your position, can you?

Dear Faun the Pawn:

No male family member could marry a too closely related female.

Did not matter if sex was a requirement or not, that was a qualification of obtaining a license. AND it applied across the board, and for sound reason. The reason was that by doing this, NO GOVERNMENT LICENSED MARRIAGE COULD RESULT IN INCESTUOUS DEFECTIVE BLOODLINES.

Did not matter if sex was a requirement or not.

Now YOUR side was successful in adding eligible type couples to the mix. The overall ban is absurd unless you can come up with a compelling state interest in denying otherwise eligible partners that just happen to be heterosexual brothers, from the economic benefits of marriage.

I get it, you can't. So Ya got your additional five minutes of attention whore time.

As the Aussies say

Good on Ya sport.

You make no sense at all.

Since sex is not a requirement of marriage, your bloodline theory is irrelevant. It anything you've been saying made any sense, and it doesn't marriage between a brother and his sister would have been legal years ago.

You're trying to make this about same-sex siblings/parents and their kids, but you lost that argument the moment you pointed out that sex isn't a requirement of marriage.

 

[Faun]

Who knows what that even means? I'm nrith
If that were true, and it's really your delusion, brothers would have been allowed to marry each other all along.

Ya see ... this is where your delusion crumbles in the stark face of reality.

Are you really that stupid?

All family members that could marry were prohibited because marriage was between a man and a woman. Men procreate with Women (something that may surprise you) and making all family members ineligible was equitable. Now, we have eligible partners that can't possibly procreate, so the prohibition is inequitable and a violation of equal protection.

So, tell me Faun, what is the compelling state interest in denying this right to marry to heterosexual brothers?

You said marriage isn't about sex. So why have brothers not been allowed to marry their sisters?

This is your argument; maybe that's why it sounds so stupid to you?

Oh, and don't misquote me, I said that sex isn't a requirement of marriage nor is it required as a qualification to marry.

And yet, a brother couldn't marry his sister. Who knows why you think that changes now that men can marry men and women can marry women?

You came up with the arguments, deal with it.

Here it is, what is the compelling state interest.........

The dumbass Faun never has an answer.

Sorry, you don't get to pawn off your idiocy on me.

The moronic notion that siblings can now marry each because same-sex marriage can no longer be banned is all yours.

 

[Pop23]

Are you really that stupid?

All family members that could marry were prohibited because marriage was between a man and a woman. Men procreate with Women (something that may surprise you) and making all family members ineligible was equitable. Now, we have eligible partners that can't possibly procreate, so the prohibition is inequitable and a violation of equal protection.

So, tell me Faun, what is the compelling state interest in denying this right to marry to heterosexual brothers?

You said marriage isn't about sex. So why have brothers not been allowed to marry their sisters?

This is your argument; maybe that's why it sounds so stupid to you?

Because it was an exvluded pairing that applied equally to all eligible couples. The reason was to do everything possible to stop defective bloodlines (at least goverment licensed defective bloodlines)

The equitable application of the law, for a specific purpose made such a prohibition meet equal protection qualifications.

Now it's absurd, since brothers cannot procreate with each other and now same sex couples are allowed to marry.

Sorry dude, your side changed the single qualification that made this possible.

Aren't you proud?

Why would I be proud that you're retarded?

Again, you said sex isn't a requirement of marriage. To that end, you even suggested two brothers should be allowed to marry each other because they could be heterosexual.

The same holds true for opposite gendered siblings. Yet they still couldn't marry even when marriage was limited to a man and a woman.

You can't even see the fatal gaping head wound in your position, can you?

Dear Faun the Pawn:

No male family member could marry a too closely related female.

Did not matter if sex was a requirement or not, that was a qualification of obtaining a license. AND it applied across the board, and for sound reason. The reason was that by doing this, NO GOVERNMENT LICENSED MARRIAGE COULD RESULT IN INCESTUOUS DEFECTIVE BLOODLINES.

Did not matter if sex was a requirement or not.

Now YOUR side was successful in adding eligible type couples to the mix. The overall ban is absurd unless you can come up with a compelling state interest in denying otherwise eligible partners that just happen to be heterosexual brothers, from the economic benefits of marriage.

I get it, you can't. So Ya got your additional five minutes of attention whore time.

As the Aussies say

Good on Ya sport.

You make no sense at all.

Since sex is not a requirement of marriage, your bloodline theory is irrelevant. It anything you've been saying made any sense, and it doesn't marriage between a brother and his sister would have been legal years ago.

You're trying to make this about same-sex siblings/parents and their kids, but you lost that argument the moment you pointed out that sex isn't a requirement of marriage.

Faun, there was an exclusion for entering the institution. That exclusion no longer exists. Without that exclussion then ALL must be eligible to marry. Before THIS WAS NOT IN THE REALM OF POSSIBILITY.

Regardless if sex is a qualification or not, then the state has NO WAY to NOT LICENSE relationships that could RESULT IN defective bloodlines.

You must be ever so happy.

 

[Pop23]

Are you really that stupid?

All family members that could marry were prohibited because marriage was between a man and a woman. Men procreate with Women (something that may surprise you) and making all family members ineligible was equitable. Now, we have eligible partners that can't possibly procreate, so the prohibition is inequitable and a violation of equal protection.

So, tell me Faun, what is the compelling state interest in denying this right to marry to heterosexual brothers?

You said marriage isn't about sex. So why have brothers not been allowed to marry their sisters?

This is your argument; maybe that's why it sounds so stupid to you?

Oh, and don't misquote me, I said that sex isn't a requirement of marriage nor is it required as a qualification to marry.

And yet, a brother couldn't marry his sister. Who knows why you think that changes now that men can marry men and women can marry women?

You came up with the arguments, deal with it.

Here it is, what is the compelling state interest.........

The dumbass Faun never has an answer.

Sorry, you don't get to pawn off your idiocy on me.

The moronic notion that siblings can now marry each because same-sex marriage can no longer be banned is all yours.

Because you say so?

All you have to do to win the argument is provide the compelling state interest in the denial of same sex heterosexual brothers from the economic benefits of marriage.

Oh, you're this bold and brave protector of rights? Really? And you can't answer that?

Light weight progressive.

 

[Faun]

You said marriage isn't about sex. So why have brothers not been allowed to marry their sisters?

This is your argument; maybe that's why it sounds so stupid to you?

Oh, and don't misquote me, I said that sex isn't a requirement of marriage nor is it required as a qualification to marry.

And yet, a brother couldn't marry his sister. Who knows why you think that changes now that men can marry men and women can marry women?

You came up with the arguments, deal with it.

Here it is, what is the compelling state interest.........

The dumbass Faun never has an answer.

Sorry, you don't get to pawn off your idiocy on me.

The moronic notion that siblings can now marry each because same-sex marriage can no longer be banned is all yours.

Because you say so?

All you have to do to win the argument is provide the compelling state interest in the denial of same sex heterosexual brothers from the economic benefits of marriage.

Oh, you're this bold and brave protector of rights? Really? And you can't answer that?

Light weight progressive.

No, because that is your argument, not mine. It's all you've been talking about on this thread. You don't get to pawn your moronic argument off on to me.

 

[Faun]

You said marriage isn't about sex. So why have brothers not been allowed to marry their sisters?

This is your argument; maybe that's why it sounds so stupid to you?

Oh, and don't misquote me, I said that sex isn't a requirement of marriage nor is it required as a qualification to marry.

And yet, a brother couldn't marry his sister. Who knows why you think that changes now that men can marry men and women can marry women?

You came up with the arguments, deal with it.

Here it is, what is the compelling state interest.........

The dumbass Faun never has an answer.

Sorry, you don't get to pawn off your idiocy on me.

The moronic notion that siblings can now marry each because same-sex marriage can no longer be banned is all yours.

Because you say so?

All you have to do to win the argument is provide the compelling state interest in the denial of same sex heterosexual brothers from the economic benefits of marriage.

Oh, you're this bold and brave protector of rights? Really? And you can't answer that?

Light weight progressive.

And btw, there's no [legal] difference between two heterosexual males marrying each other as there is from a gay man marrying his gay sister, yet such marriages were still banned even before the ban on same-sex marriages became illegal. Nothing has changed, nor will change, for immediate family members who want to marry each other because of the Obergefell ruling.

 

[Pop23]

Oh, and don't misquote me, I said that sex isn't a requirement of marriage nor is it required as a qualification to marry.

And yet, a brother couldn't marry his sister. Who knows why you think that changes now that men can marry men and women can marry women?

You came up with the arguments, deal with it.

Here it is, what is the compelling state interest.........

The dumbass Faun never has an answer.

Sorry, you don't get to pawn off your idiocy on me.

The moronic notion that siblings can now marry each because same-sex marriage can no longer be banned is all yours.

Because you say so?

All you have to do to win the argument is provide the compelling state interest in the denial of same sex heterosexual brothers from the economic benefits of marriage.

Oh, you're this bold and brave protector of rights? Really? And you can't answer that?

Light weight progressive.

And btw, there's no [legal] difference between two heterosexual males marrying each other as there is from a gay man marrying his gay sister, yet such marriages were still banned even before the ban on same-sex marriages became illegal. Nothing has changed, nor will change, for immediate family members who want to marry each other because of the Obergefell ruling.

Then you can come up with a compelling state interest in the denial of two heterosexual brothers from the economic benefits of marriage? Right?

Asked the same question prior to Obergefell the answer was that no such marriage was allowed so the State did not to meet that standard.

As for opposite sex siblings, prior to Obergfell, the state would simply have to prove that the prohibition met the equal protection standard and that the application of that standard served to protect society from harm. Which it did.

Now, after Obergfell, state the compelling state interest in denying the right to marry to two individuals that can't possiby cause societal damage from a defective bloodline.

 

[Pop23]

Oh, and don't misquote me, I said that sex isn't a requirement of marriage nor is it required as a qualification to marry.

And yet, a brother couldn't marry his sister. Who knows why you think that changes now that men can marry men and women can marry women?

You came up with the arguments, deal with it.

Here it is, what is the compelling state interest.........

The dumbass Faun never has an answer.

Sorry, you don't get to pawn off your idiocy on me.

The moronic notion that siblings can now marry each because same-sex marriage can no longer be banned is all yours.

Because you say so?

All you have to do to win the argument is provide the compelling state interest in the denial of same sex heterosexual brothers from the economic benefits of marriage.

Oh, you're this bold and brave protector of rights? Really? And you can't answer that?

Light weight progressive.

And btw, there's no [legal] difference between two heterosexual males marrying each other as there is from a gay man marrying his gay sister, yet such marriages were still banned even before the ban on same-sex marriages became illegal. Nothing has changed, nor will change, for immediate family members who want to marry each other because of the Obergefell ruling.

Why do you insist in extolling such traditional views Neo Con.

 

[Pop23]

Oh, and don't misquote me, I said that sex isn't a requirement of marriage nor is it required as a qualification to marry.

And yet, a brother couldn't marry his sister. Who knows why you think that changes now that men can marry men and women can marry women?

You came up with the arguments, deal with it.

Here it is, what is the compelling state interest.........

The dumbass Faun never has an answer.

Sorry, you don't get to pawn off your idiocy on me.

The moronic notion that siblings can now marry each because same-sex marriage can no longer be banned is all yours.

Because you say so?

All you have to do to win the argument is provide the compelling state interest in the denial of same sex heterosexual brothers from the economic benefits of marriage.

Oh, you're this bold and brave protector of rights? Really? And you can't answer that?

Light weight progressive.

And btw, there's no [legal] difference between two heterosexual males marrying each other as there is from a gay man marrying his gay sister, yet such marriages were still banned even before the ban on same-sex marriages became illegal. Nothing has changed, nor will change, for immediate family members who want to marry each other because of the Obergefell ruling.

You understand that a law can't be arbitrary? right?

 

[Faun]

And yet, a brother couldn't marry his sister. Who knows why you think that changes now that men can marry men and women can marry women?

You came up with the arguments, deal with it.

Here it is, what is the compelling state interest.........

The dumbass Faun never has an answer.

Sorry, you don't get to pawn off your idiocy on me.

The moronic notion that siblings can now marry each because same-sex marriage can no longer be banned is all yours.

Because you say so?

All you have to do to win the argument is provide the compelling state interest in the denial of same sex heterosexual brothers from the economic benefits of marriage.

Oh, you're this bold and brave protector of rights? Really? And you can't answer that?

Light weight progressive.

And btw, there's no [legal] difference between two heterosexual males marrying each other as there is from a gay man marrying his gay sister, yet such marriages were still banned even before the ban on same-sex marriages became illegal. Nothing has changed, nor will change, for immediate family members who want to marry each other because of the Obergefell ruling.

Then you can come up with a compelling state interest in the denial of two heterosexual brothers from the economic benefits of marriage? Right?

Asked the same question prior to Obergefell the answer was that no such marriage was allowed so the State did not to meet that standard.

As for opposite sex siblings, prior to Obergfell, the state would simply have to prove that the prohibition met the equal protection standard and that the application of that standard served to protect society from harm. Which it did.

Now, after Obergfell, state the compelling state interest in denying the right to marry to two individuals that can't possiby cause societal damage from a defective bloodline.

The compelling interest is the same as for why a gay brother couldn't marry his gay sister before Obergefell.

 

[Pop23]

You came up with the arguments, deal with it.

Here it is, what is the compelling state interest.........

The dumbass Faun never has an answer.

Sorry, you don't get to pawn off your idiocy on me.

The moronic notion that siblings can now marry each because same-sex marriage can no longer be banned is all yours.

Because you say so?

All you have to do to win the argument is provide the compelling state interest in the denial of same sex heterosexual brothers from the economic benefits of marriage.

Oh, you're this bold and brave protector of rights? Really? And you can't answer that?

Light weight progressive.

And btw, there's no [legal] difference between two heterosexual males marrying each other as there is from a gay man marrying his gay sister, yet such marriages were still banned even before the ban on same-sex marriages became illegal. Nothing has changed, nor will change, for immediate family members who want to marry each other because of the Obergefell ruling.

Then you can come up with a compelling state interest in the denial of two heterosexual brothers from the economic benefits of marriage? Right?

Asked the same question prior to Obergefell the answer was that no such marriage was allowed so the State did not to meet that standard.

As for opposite sex siblings, prior to Obergfell, the state would simply have to prove that the prohibition met the equal protection standard and that the application of that standard served to protect society from harm. Which it did.

Now, after Obergfell, state the compelling state interest in denying the right to marry to two individuals that can't possiby cause societal damage from a defective bloodline.

The compelling interest is the same as for why a gay brother couldn't marry his gay sister before Obergefell.

Which is?

 

[Faun]

Sorry, you don't get to pawn off your idiocy on me.

The moronic notion that siblings can now marry each because same-sex marriage can no longer be banned is all yours.

Because you say so?

All you have to do to win the argument is provide the compelling state interest in the denial of same sex heterosexual brothers from the economic benefits of marriage.

Oh, you're this bold and brave protector of rights? Really? And you can't answer that?

Light weight progressive.

And btw, there's no [legal] difference between two heterosexual males marrying each other as there is from a gay man marrying his gay sister, yet such marriages were still banned even before the ban on same-sex marriages became illegal. Nothing has changed, nor will change, for immediate family members who want to marry each other because of the Obergefell ruling.

Then you can come up with a compelling state interest in the denial of two heterosexual brothers from the economic benefits of marriage? Right?

Asked the same question prior to Obergefell the answer was that no such marriage was allowed so the State did not to meet that standard.

As for opposite sex siblings, prior to Obergfell, the state would simply have to prove that the prohibition met the equal protection standard and that the application of that standard served to protect society from harm. Which it did.

Now, after Obergfell, state the compelling state interest in denying the right to marry to two individuals that can't possiby cause societal damage from a defective bloodline.

The compelling interest is the same as for why a gay brother couldn't marry his gay sister before Obergefell.

Which is?

Doesn't matter.

A gay brother could never marry his gay sister. Likewise, a straight brother cannot marry his straight brother.

Nothing has changed despite Obergefell.

 

[Pop23]

Because you say so?

All you have to do to win the argument is provide the compelling state interest in the denial of same sex heterosexual brothers from the economic benefits of marriage.

Oh, you're this bold and brave protector of rights? Really? And you can't answer that?

Light weight progressive.

And btw, there's no [legal] difference between two heterosexual males marrying each other as there is from a gay man marrying his gay sister, yet such marriages were still banned even before the ban on same-sex marriages became illegal. Nothing has changed, nor will change, for immediate family members who want to marry each other because of the Obergefell ruling.

Then you can come up with a compelling state interest in the denial of two heterosexual brothers from the economic benefits of marriage? Right?

Asked the same question prior to Obergefell the answer was that no such marriage was allowed so the State did not to meet that standard.

As for opposite sex siblings, prior to Obergfell, the state would simply have to prove that the prohibition met the equal protection standard and that the application of that standard served to protect society from harm. Which it did.

Now, after Obergfell, state the compelling state interest in denying the right to marry to two individuals that can't possiby cause societal damage from a defective bloodline.

The compelling interest is the same as for why a gay brother couldn't marry his gay sister before Obergefell.

Which is?

Doesn't matter.

A gay brother could never marry his gay sister. Likewise, a straight brother cannot marry his straight brother.

Nothing has changed despite Obergefell.

Except that you are pointing out subgroups within a larger group.

Before Obergfell there was no need to outline the subgroups as all were excluded and that was equitable.

To protect the integrity of the bloodlines a single exclussion was required and that single exclusion was not arbitrary. No male could marry any female, too closely related. That single, non arbitrary, equitable exclussion served the purpose in eliminating any possibility of the State licensing a relationship that would degrade the bloodlines through incest.

See the change the Obergfell ruling created. You pointed it out quite nicely.

Now yoi have arbitrarily denied this right to many millions of individuals who can't possibly degrade bloodlines, whether married or not.

And your compelling state reason to continue this arbitrary exclussion is....

A shrug of the shoulder?

 

[Faun]

And btw, there's no [legal] difference between two heterosexual males marrying each other as there is from a gay man marrying his gay sister, yet such marriages were still banned even before the ban on same-sex marriages became illegal. Nothing has changed, nor will change, for immediate family members who want to marry each other because of the Obergefell ruling.

Then you can come up with a compelling state interest in the denial of two heterosexual brothers from the economic benefits of marriage? Right?

Asked the same question prior to Obergefell the answer was that no such marriage was allowed so the State did not to meet that standard.

As for opposite sex siblings, prior to Obergfell, the state would simply have to prove that the prohibition met the equal protection standard and that the application of that standard served to protect society from harm. Which it did.

Now, after Obergfell, state the compelling state interest in denying the right to marry to two individuals that can't possiby cause societal damage from a defective bloodline.

The compelling interest is the same as for why a gay brother couldn't marry his gay sister before Obergefell.

Which is?

Doesn't matter.

A gay brother could never marry his gay sister. Likewise, a straight brother cannot marry his straight brother.

Nothing has changed despite Obergefell.

Except that you are pointing out subgroups within a larger group.

Before Obergfell there was no need to outline the subgroups as all were excluded and that was equitable.

To protect the integrity of the bloodlines a single exclussion was required and that single exclusion was not arbitrary. No male could marry any female, too closely related. That single, non arbitrary, equitable exclussion served the purpose in eliminating any possibility of the State licensing a relationship that would degrade the bloodlines through incest.

See the change the Obergfell ruling created. You pointed it out quite nicely.

Now yoi have arbitrarily denied this right to many millions of individuals who can't possibly degrade bloodlines, whether married or not.

And your compelling state reason is.....

A shrug of the shoulder?

It doesn't matter that they are a "subgroup" of a larger group. Gays are also a "subgroup" of a larger population and that matters not.

And again, the salient point you can't evade ... a gay brother could never marry his gay sister. Likewise, a straight brother cannot marry his straight brother.

 

[Pop23]

Then you can come up with a compelling state interest in the denial of two heterosexual brothers from the economic benefits of marriage? Right?

Asked the same question prior to Obergefell the answer was that no such marriage was allowed so the State did not to meet that standard.

As for opposite sex siblings, prior to Obergfell, the state would simply have to prove that the prohibition met the equal protection standard and that the application of that standard served to protect society from harm. Which it did.

Now, after Obergfell, state the compelling state interest in denying the right to marry to two individuals that can't possiby cause societal damage from a defective bloodline.

The compelling interest is the same as for why a gay brother couldn't marry his gay sister before Obergefell.

Which is?

Doesn't matter.

A gay brother could never marry his gay sister. Likewise, a straight brother cannot marry his straight brother.

Nothing has changed despite Obergefell.

Except that you are pointing out subgroups within a larger group.

Before Obergfell there was no need to outline the subgroups as all were excluded and that was equitable.

To protect the integrity of the bloodlines a single exclussion was required and that single exclusion was not arbitrary. No male could marry any female, too closely related. That single, non arbitrary, equitable exclussion served the purpose in eliminating any possibility of the State licensing a relationship that would degrade the bloodlines through incest.

See the change the Obergfell ruling created. You pointed it out quite nicely.

Now yoi have arbitrarily denied this right to many millions of individuals who can't possibly degrade bloodlines, whether married or not.

And your compelling state reason is.....

A shrug of the shoulder?

It doesn't matter that they are a "subgroup" of a larger group. Gays are also a "subgroup" of a larger population and that matters not.

And again, the salient point you can't evade ... a gay brother could never marry his gay sister. Likewise, a straight brother cannot marry his straight brother.

Your two examples show the absurdity of how the law currently exists. Laws must be based in reason.

What reason is there to exclude those pairings now.

The law previous had an obvious meaning attached to it.

Marriage is between a Man and a Woman, not too closely related.

States wanted the participants to know that, when entering these sanctioned relationships, they were marrying into clean bloodlines.

What is the reason to exclude same sex siblings now, since these relationships could not effect those bloodlines?

You can continue to deflect, that's what defenders of bad laws do, but the truth is the truth, and Obergfell created this one.

Even more interesting is that you appear to be arguing that the law is just based on tradition and that laws that are arbitrary, containing no compelling state interest in denying individual rights are constitutional.

If that's not your argument, then you could easily come up with the compelling interest that the State has in denying same sex heterosexual brothers the right to marry.

Let's hear it ol wise one.

 

[Faun]

The compelling interest is the same as for why a gay brother couldn't marry his gay sister before Obergefell.

Which is?

Doesn't matter.

A gay brother could never marry his gay sister. Likewise, a straight brother cannot marry his straight brother.

Nothing has changed despite Obergefell.

Except that you are pointing out subgroups within a larger group.

Before Obergfell there was no need to outline the subgroups as all were excluded and that was equitable.

To protect the integrity of the bloodlines a single exclussion was required and that single exclusion was not arbitrary. No male could marry any female, too closely related. That single, non arbitrary, equitable exclussion served the purpose in eliminating any possibility of the State licensing a relationship that would degrade the bloodlines through incest.

See the change the Obergfell ruling created. You pointed it out quite nicely.

Now yoi have arbitrarily denied this right to many millions of individuals who can't possibly degrade bloodlines, whether married or not.

And your compelling state reason is.....

A shrug of the shoulder?

It doesn't matter that they are a "subgroup" of a larger group. Gays are also a "subgroup" of a larger population and that matters not.

And again, the salient point you can't evade ... a gay brother could never marry his gay sister. Likewise, a straight brother cannot marry his straight brother.

Your two examples show the absurdity of how the law currently exists. Laws must be based in reason.

What reason is there to exclude those pairings now.

The law previous had an obvious meaning attached to it.

Marriage is between a Man and a Woman, not too closely related.

States wanted the participants to know that, when entering these sanctioned relationships, they were marrying into clean bloodlines.

What is the reason to exclude same sex siblings now, since these relationships could not effect those bloodlines?

You can continue to deflect, that's what defenders of bad laws do, but the truth is the truth, and Obergfell created this one.

Even more interesting is that you appear to be arguing that the law is just based on tradition and that laws that are arbitrary, containing no compelling state interest in denying individual rights are constitutional.

If that's not your argument, then you could easily come up with the compelling interest that the State has in denying same sex heterosexual brothers the right to marry.

Let's hear it ol wise one.

The reasons for those laws have not changed because of Obergefel. You're clinging to stupid because you think you found a way down the slippery slope because of Obergefell with incestuous marriage ... but you didn't.

The law for as long as I can tell prohibited a gay brother from marrying his gay sister. That's the end of your argument. You just don't know it yet.

 

[Pop23]

Which is?

Doesn't matter.

A gay brother could never marry his gay sister. Likewise, a straight brother cannot marry his straight brother.

Nothing has changed despite Obergefell.

Except that you are pointing out subgroups within a larger group.

Before Obergfell there was no need to outline the subgroups as all were excluded and that was equitable.

To protect the integrity of the bloodlines a single exclussion was required and that single exclusion was not arbitrary. No male could marry any female, too closely related. That single, non arbitrary, equitable exclussion served the purpose in eliminating any possibility of the State licensing a relationship that would degrade the bloodlines through incest.

See the change the Obergfell ruling created. You pointed it out quite nicely.

Now yoi have arbitrarily denied this right to many millions of individuals who can't possibly degrade bloodlines, whether married or not.

And your compelling state reason is.....

A shrug of the shoulder?

It doesn't matter that they are a "subgroup" of a larger group. Gays are also a "subgroup" of a larger population and that matters not.

And again, the salient point you can't evade ... a gay brother could never marry his gay sister. Likewise, a straight brother cannot marry his straight brother.

Your two examples show the absurdity of how the law currently exists. Laws must be based in reason.

What reason is there to exclude those pairings now.

The law previous had an obvious meaning attached to it.

Marriage is between a Man and a Woman, not too closely related.

States wanted the participants to know that, when entering these sanctioned relationships, they were marrying into clean bloodlines.

What is the reason to exclude same sex siblings now, since these relationships could not effect those bloodlines?

You can continue to deflect, that's what defenders of bad laws do, but the truth is the truth, and Obergfell created this one.

Even more interesting is that you appear to be arguing that the law is just based on tradition and that laws that are arbitrary, containing no compelling state interest in denying individual rights are constitutional.

If that's not your argument, then you could easily come up with the compelling interest that the State has in denying same sex heterosexual brothers the right to marry.

Let's hear it ol wise one.

The reasons for those laws have not changed because of Obergefel. You're clinging to stupid because you think you found a way down the slippery slope because of Obergefell with incestuous marriage ... but you didn't.

The law for as long as I can tell prohibited a gay brother from marrying his gay sister. That's the end of your argument. You just don't know it yet.

Yet you continue to advocate tradition as the basis for good law "for as long as I remember".

Clue: Dredd Scott was overturned.

If my arguments are without merit, and Obergfell, did not create any arbitrary condition within the law, blow it out of the water by supplying the compelling State Intetest that the State has in denying two same sex siblings this right.

Funny you can't.

 

[Faun]

Doesn't matter.

A gay brother could never marry his gay sister. Likewise, a straight brother cannot marry his straight brother.

Nothing has changed despite Obergefell.

Except that you are pointing out subgroups within a larger group.

Before Obergfell there was no need to outline the subgroups as all were excluded and that was equitable.

To protect the integrity of the bloodlines a single exclussion was required and that single exclusion was not arbitrary. No male could marry any female, too closely related. That single, non arbitrary, equitable exclussion served the purpose in eliminating any possibility of the State licensing a relationship that would degrade the bloodlines through incest.

See the change the Obergfell ruling created. You pointed it out quite nicely.

Now yoi have arbitrarily denied this right to many millions of individuals who can't possibly degrade bloodlines, whether married or not.

And your compelling state reason is.....

A shrug of the shoulder?

It doesn't matter that they are a "subgroup" of a larger group. Gays are also a "subgroup" of a larger population and that matters not.

And again, the salient point you can't evade ... a gay brother could never marry his gay sister. Likewise, a straight brother cannot marry his straight brother.

Your two examples show the absurdity of how the law currently exists. Laws must be based in reason.

What reason is there to exclude those pairings now.

The law previous had an obvious meaning attached to it.

Marriage is between a Man and a Woman, not too closely related.

States wanted the participants to know that, when entering these sanctioned relationships, they were marrying into clean bloodlines.

What is the reason to exclude same sex siblings now, since these relationships could not effect those bloodlines?

You can continue to deflect, that's what defenders of bad laws do, but the truth is the truth, and Obergfell created this one.

Even more interesting is that you appear to be arguing that the law is just based on tradition and that laws that are arbitrary, containing no compelling state interest in denying individual rights are constitutional.

If that's not your argument, then you could easily come up with the compelling interest that the State has in denying same sex heterosexual brothers the right to marry.

Let's hear it ol wise one.

The reasons for those laws have not changed because of Obergefel. You're clinging to stupid because you think you found a way down the slippery slope because of Obergefell with incestuous marriage ... but you didn't.

The law for as long as I can tell prohibited a gay brother from marrying his gay sister. That's the end of your argument. You just don't know it yet.

Yet you continue to advocate tradition as the basis for good law "for as long as I remember".

Clue: Dredd Scott was overturned.

If my arguments are without merit, and Obergfell, did not create any arbitrary condition within the law, blow it out of the water by supplying the compelling State Intetest that the State has in denying two same sex siblings this right.

Funny you can't.

I already have. You're just too stupid to pay attention. The state doesn't track who does or does not have sex. The presumption is that married couples do. So the state could not allow a brother and sister to marry even if they were gay. It's not about tradition. Who knows where you plucked that from?

 

[Pop23]

Except that you are pointing out subgroups within a larger group.

Before Obergfell there was no need to outline the subgroups as all were excluded and that was equitable.

To protect the integrity of the bloodlines a single exclussion was required and that single exclusion was not arbitrary. No male could marry any female, too closely related. That single, non arbitrary, equitable exclussion served the purpose in eliminating any possibility of the State licensing a relationship that would degrade the bloodlines through incest.

See the change the Obergfell ruling created. You pointed it out quite nicely.

Now yoi have arbitrarily denied this right to many millions of individuals who can't possibly degrade bloodlines, whether married or not.

And your compelling state reason is.....

A shrug of the shoulder?

It doesn't matter that they are a "subgroup" of a larger group. Gays are also a "subgroup" of a larger population and that matters not.

And again, the salient point you can't evade ... a gay brother could never marry his gay sister. Likewise, a straight brother cannot marry his straight brother.

Your two examples show the absurdity of how the law currently exists. Laws must be based in reason.

What reason is there to exclude those pairings now.

The law previous had an obvious meaning attached to it.

Marriage is between a Man and a Woman, not too closely related.

States wanted the participants to know that, when entering these sanctioned relationships, they were marrying into clean bloodlines.

What is the reason to exclude same sex siblings now, since these relationships could not effect those bloodlines?

You can continue to deflect, that's what defenders of bad laws do, but the truth is the truth, and Obergfell created this one.

Even more interesting is that you appear to be arguing that the law is just based on tradition and that laws that are arbitrary, containing no compelling state interest in denying individual rights are constitutional.

If that's not your argument, then you could easily come up with the compelling interest that the State has in denying same sex heterosexual brothers the right to marry.

Let's hear it ol wise one.

The reasons for those laws have not changed because of Obergefel. You're clinging to stupid because you think you found a way down the slippery slope because of Obergefell with incestuous marriage ... but you didn't.

The law for as long as I can tell prohibited a gay brother from marrying his gay sister. That's the end of your argument. You just don't know it yet.

Yet you continue to advocate tradition as the basis for good law "for as long as I remember".

Clue: Dredd Scott was overturned.

If my arguments are without merit, and Obergfell, did not create any arbitrary condition within the law, blow it out of the water by supplying the compelling State Intetest that the State has in denying two same sex siblings this right.

Funny you can't.

I already have. You're just too stupid to pay attention. The state doesn't track who does or does not have sex. The presumption is that married couples do. So the state could not allow a brother and sister to marry even if they were gay. It's not about tradition. Who knows where you plucked that from?

Find me the statute then that states married couples must have sex to have a valid contract known as marriage.

Clue #2. There is none.

Without it, and without the couples being of opposite gender we have no compelling State interest in denying same sex brothers from marrying.

Try that presumption gambit in court, the presumption granted in court is the individuals presumption of innocence. Not the other way around. We do not live in a police state.

So I will try again, name the States compelling interest in denial of this right to the individual.

 

[Pop23]

It doesn't matter that they are a "subgroup" of a larger group. Gays are also a "subgroup" of a larger population and that matters not.

And again, the salient point you can't evade ... a gay brother could never marry his gay sister. Likewise, a straight brother cannot marry his straight brother.

Your two examples show the absurdity of how the law currently exists. Laws must be based in reason.

What reason is there to exclude those pairings now.

The law previous had an obvious meaning attached to it.

Marriage is between a Man and a Woman, not too closely related.

States wanted the participants to know that, when entering these sanctioned relationships, they were marrying into clean bloodlines.

What is the reason to exclude same sex siblings now, since these relationships could not effect those bloodlines?

You can continue to deflect, that's what defenders of bad laws do, but the truth is the truth, and Obergfell created this one.

Even more interesting is that you appear to be arguing that the law is just based on tradition and that laws that are arbitrary, containing no compelling state interest in denying individual rights are constitutional.

If that's not your argument, then you could easily come up with the compelling interest that the State has in denying same sex heterosexual brothers the right to marry.

Let's hear it ol wise one.

The reasons for those laws have not changed because of Obergefel. You're clinging to stupid because you think you found a way down the slippery slope because of Obergefell with incestuous marriage ... but you didn't.

The law for as long as I can tell prohibited a gay brother from marrying his gay sister. That's the end of your argument. You just don't know it yet.

Yet you continue to advocate tradition as the basis for good law "for as long as I remember".

Clue: Dredd Scott was overturned.

If my arguments are without merit, and Obergfell, did not create any arbitrary condition within the law, blow it out of the water by supplying the compelling State Intetest that the State has in denying two same sex siblings this right.

Funny you can't.

I already have. You're just too stupid to pay attention. The state doesn't track who does or does not have sex. The presumption is that married couples do. So the state could not allow a brother and sister to marry even if they were gay. It's not about tradition. Who knows where you plucked that from?

Find me the statute then that states married couples must have sex to have a valid contract known as marriage.

Clue #2. There is none.

Without it, and without the couples being of opposite gender we have no compelling State interest in denying same sex brothers from marrying.

Try that presumption gambit in court, the presumption granted in court is the individuals presumption of innocence. Not the other way around. We do not live in a police state.

So I will try again, name the States compelling interest in denial of this right to the individual.

Even funnier is your claim that a presumption exists, and that would presumption would negate the need for the State to prove a cimpelling Intetest.

Where does that presumption come from?

TRADITION.

Are you really that OCD that even you don't see that?