It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Montrovant]

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.

Laws must be based in reason? You clearly have not read enough laws.

 

[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.

Laws must be based in reason? You clearly have not read enough laws.

Maybe so,

I'm more versed however with contract law which, by the way, what a marriage licence is.

I see you still have no answer to the posed question.

But your ability to deflect is a thing of progressive beauty

Really it is

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Laws must be based in reason? You clearly have not read enough laws.

Maybe so,

I'm more versed however with contract law which, by the way, what a marriage licence is.

I see you still have no answer to the posed question.

But your ability to deflect is a thing of progressive beauty

Really it is

Which question do I not have an answer for, the compelling interest in preventing close familial marriages? I've answered you about that at least two times already. If you cannot be bothered to read my responses that isn't my fault.

Oh, perhaps you'd be willing to explain to Boss that marriage is a form of contract law? He seem to think otherwise.

 

[Seawytch]

When is Pops filing his case one wonders? He's very passionate in his defense of siblings marrying. Best of luck!

 

[Faun]

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.

You asked for a compelling interest and I gave you one. It destroys your position, so now you cry the compelling interest I gave you is not a law.

Do you get dizzy from running around in circles like that?

 

[Pop23]

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.

You asked for a compelling interest and I gave you one. It destroys your position, so now you cry the compelling interest I gave you is not a law.

Do you get dizzy from running around in circles like that?

Giving a point to, what only could be considered an arbitrary law, only weakens your position.

Look, if a group, or subgroup can be excluded because of an ability (procreation), then the States have an equal right to exclude because of inability.

You fucking crazy? That makes what the Supreme Court just did inexcusable!

You are really that stoopid.

 

[Syriusly]

Uh Faun...we DO have sex

We don't care that you have sex with faun.

Who knows what that even means? I'm nrith

How, you ask? You're the one making the case that marriage isn't about sex. That means there's no reason to deny two men from marrying each other.

There is no qualification, true, now that the requirement that the marriage be between one man and one woman, In order to create a new family unit has been thrown under the bus, and since there is no qualification that sex be a requirement of marriage.......

What is the possible compelling state interest in denying ANY COUPLE a civil marriage license?

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?

I am very proud that in the United States, couples can now legally marry regardless of the race or gender of their spouse.

Meanwhile- it is still illegal for siblings to marry.

Just as it was before Obergefell and just as it was before Loving.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Wisconsin.

First cousins are allowed to marry only if they prove that they cannot procreate together.

Siblings are not allowed to marry regardless of whether they can procreate or not.

Why does Wisconsin allow First cousins to marry but not siblings?

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Pop is just trying to get you to dance with his strawman- he even lies about what you are saying to get you to dance.

Just admire his delicate dance moves as he swirls his straw man around and around as he hopes no one notices he is all by himself.

 

[Faun]

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.

You asked for a compelling interest and I gave you one. It destroys your position, so now you cry the compelling interest I gave you is not a law.

Do you get dizzy from running around in circles like that?

Giving a point to, what only could be considered an arbitrary law, only weakens your position.

Look, if a group, or subgroup can be excluded because of an ability (procreation), then the States have an equal right to exclude because of inability.

You fucking crazy? That makes what the Supreme Court just did inexcusable!

You are really that stoopid.

What part of compelling interests are not necessarily law confounds you?

Is it the same misfiring of synapses which fooled you into believing I said a group is excluded because of an ability?

I said a group cannot enjoy access to a law if it violates the equal protection of other in that group.

 

[Boss]

I said a group cannot enjoy access to a law if it violates the equal protection of other in that group.

So homosexuals can't enjoy access to a law if it violates the equal protection of incestophiles?

 

[Faun]

I said a group cannot enjoy access to a law if it violates the equal protection of other in that group.

So homosexuals can't enjoy access to a law if it violates the equal protection of incestophiles?

They're already treated equally under the law -- no immediate family members can marry each other. Gay incestuous marriage is treated the same as straight incestuous marriage.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Wisconsin.

First cousins are allowed to marry only if they prove that they cannot procreate together.

Siblings are not allowed to marry regardless of whether they can procreate or not.

Why does Wisconsin allow First cousins to marry but not siblings?

I dunno, but since the law now reads that marriage is not solely between one man and woman, and sex is not a requirement to marry, it's now arbitrary.

Sorry Shirley, that's how it works

 

[Pop23]

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.

You asked for a compelling interest and I gave you one. It destroys your position, so now you cry the compelling interest I gave you is not a law.

Do you get dizzy from running around in circles like that?

Giving a point to, what only could be considered an arbitrary law, only weakens your position.

Look, if a group, or subgroup can be excluded because of an ability (procreation), then the States have an equal right to exclude because of inability.

You fucking crazy? That makes what the Supreme Court just did inexcusable!

You are really that stoopid.

What part of compelling interests are not necessarily law confounds you?

Is it the same misfiring of synapses which fooled you into believing I said a group is excluded because of an ability?

I said a group cannot enjoy access to a law if it violates the equal protection of other in that group.

Our law is based on individual rights. Unless applied equally, and with the exact same rational basis, your argument is simply arbitrary.

The same arbitrary argument was used to deny blacks the right to marry whites and men from marrying men.

You seem to be both a bigot and a homophobe along with a heterophobe and stoopid as they come.

 

[Faun]

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.

Wisconsin.

First cousins are allowed to marry only if they prove that they cannot procreate together.

Siblings are not allowed to marry regardless of whether they can procreate or not.

Why does Wisconsin allow First cousins to marry but not siblings?

I dunno, but since the law now reads that marriage is not solely between one man and woman, and sex is not a requirement to marry, it's now arbitrary.

Sorry Shirley, that's how it works

Sex has never been a requirement of marriage. That has not changed. Marriage laws have always allowed a man to marry a woman. That too has not changed. Yet immediate family members were never allowed to marry and still aren't. And nothing has changed to alter that.

 

[Pop23]

I said a group cannot enjoy access to a law if it violates the equal protection of other in that group.

So homosexuals can't enjoy access to a law if it violates the equal protection of incestophiles?

They're already treated equally under the law -- no immediate family members can marry each other. Gay incestuous marriage is treated the same as straight incestuous marriage.

Idiot, you need to provide evidence that marriage requires sex, or you are creating an arbitrary law which violates the due process of those entering into the contract.

Get it.

Without men being only allowed to marry women, the "too closely related" clause becomes complete foolishness, that is, once again, unless you find a statute that requires sex as a part of marriage.

All citizens are innocent UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

Incest is a crime.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Wisconsin.

First cousins are allowed to marry only if they prove that they cannot procreate together.

Siblings are not allowed to marry regardless of whether they can procreate or not.

Why does Wisconsin allow First cousins to marry but not siblings?

I dunno, but since the law now reads that marriage is not solely between one man and woman, and sex is not a requirement to marry, it's now arbitrary.

Sorry Shirley, that's how it works

Sex has never been a requirement of marriage. That has not changed. Marriage laws have always allowed a man to marry a woman. That too has not changed. Yet immediate family members were never allowed to marry and still aren't. And nothing has changed to alter that.

Are you too stupid to think nobody saw your deflection goat head?

 

[Faun]

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.

You asked for a compelling interest and I gave you one. It destroys your position, so now you cry the compelling interest I gave you is not a law.

Do you get dizzy from running around in circles like that?

Giving a point to, what only could be considered an arbitrary law, only weakens your position.

Look, if a group, or subgroup can be excluded because of an ability (procreation), then the States have an equal right to exclude because of inability.

You fucking crazy? That makes what the Supreme Court just did inexcusable!

You are really that stoopid.

What part of compelling interests are not necessarily law confounds you?

Is it the same misfiring of synapses which fooled you into believing I said a group is excluded because of an ability?

I said a group cannot enjoy access to a law if it violates the equal protection of other in that group.

Our law is based on individual rights. Unless applied equally, and with the exact same rational basis, your argument is simply arbitrary.

The same arbitrary argument was used to deny blacks the right to marry whites and men from marrying men.

You seem to be both a bigot and a homophobe along with a heterophobe and stoopid as they come.

The 14th Amendment is about everyone being treated equally under the law. There are no individual exceptions.

No siblings can marry. All siblings are treated the same under the law.

 

[Faun]

I said a group cannot enjoy access to a law if it violates the equal protection of other in that group.

So homosexuals can't enjoy access to a law if it violates the equal protection of incestophiles?

They're already treated equally under the law -- no immediate family members can marry each other. Gay incestuous marriage is treated the same as straight incestuous marriage.

Idiot, you need to provide evidence that marriage requires sex, or you are creating an arbitrary law which violates the due process of those entering into the contract.

Get it.

Without men being only allowed to marry women, the "too closely related" clause becomes complete foolishness, that is, once again, unless you find a statute that requires sex as a part of marriage.

All citizens are innocent UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

Incest is a crime.

You've already abandoned your plea on incestuous marriage. Remember?

 

[Faun]

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.

Wisconsin.

First cousins are allowed to marry only if they prove that they cannot procreate together.

Siblings are not allowed to marry regardless of whether they can procreate or not.

Why does Wisconsin allow First cousins to marry but not siblings?

I dunno, but since the law now reads that marriage is not solely between one man and woman, and sex is not a requirement to marry, it's now arbitrary.

Sorry Shirley, that's how it works

Sex has never been a requirement of marriage. That has not changed. Marriage laws have always allowed a man to marry a woman. That too has not changed. Yet immediate family members were never allowed to marry and still aren't. And nothing has changed to alter that.

Are you too stupid to think nobody saw your deflection goat head?

That's what you call having your ass handed to you? A deflection?