It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[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

Wait. If marriage is not between one man and one woman and sex is not a requirement of marriage it is arbitrary? Only monogamous opposite gender marriage has reasoning behind it?

Where did you dig that up?

The restriction denying all marriage between siblings is arbitrary if, as stated before, the prohibition was meant to stop incestuous marriage from producing defective bloodlines.

If not, explain why the prohibition existed in the first place.

 

[Pop23]

And yet you assume those wanting to marry will have sex. You can't explain it since the law does not make entering into the contract a requirement.

Can you explain your perverted line of reasoning?

And you're assuming anyone gives a shit that you are arguing quite forcefully to marry your sister. Go for it. File your case.

Link to that specific post or admit the lie.

You realize you're exhibiting homophobic tendencies SeaWytch. You would deny the rights and benefits of marriage to millions of potential partners, not to mention the dignity of married partners to those partners children simply because their pairings cannot produce offspring!

NEWSFLASH

SeaWytch and Faun are HOMOPHOBES!

Why do homosexuals frighten you Wytch, or is this simply a symptom of your OCD?

Oh, it's for others to marry their siblings. How generous of you. You are still quite the ardent defender. Incestuous couples lionize you I'm sure.

I'm not denying anything to anyone. I support your support...now run along and file your case, hero of the incestuous.

Are you admitting there is no compelling state interest in the denial of same sex heterosexual siblings from marrying? Then no court case is required as it is a civil right issue and state legislature have a duty to address it.

Incestuous couples?

You must do something then that no other poster has yet been able to produce. That is the statute requiring sex in a marriage. If not, you're simply projecting your own perverted thought process on others.

Did you forget all my post in which I state quite clearly that I oppose family marriage? Of course you didn't. But then, instead of admitting defeat and the lie, your OCD controlled mind made you post an untruth.

Sucks to be you I guess

It's not me you have to convince. I don't care. You are the one arguing so passionately for legal status for incestuous relationships, not me. I support your support. File your case.

Hey Wytch, we are on Internet forum, not a statehouse floor.

Your marketing ploys no longer work.

 

[Montrovant]

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

Wait. If marriage is not between one man and one woman and sex is not a requirement of marriage it is arbitrary? Only monogamous opposite gender marriage has reasoning behind it?

Where did you dig that up?

The restriction denying all marriage between siblings is arbitrary if, as stated before, the prohibition was meant to stop incestuous marriage from producing defective bloodlines.

If not, explain why the prohibition existed in the first place.

How many times do I have to answer the same question? Beyond the possibility of inbreeding, marriage between close relations, particularly grandparents/parents and children, has a greater than usual danger of one party holding too much influence over the other. A parent or grandparent is an authority figure and children are often raised to do what those authority figures tell them. It leads to questions of abuse and even if the children are giving informed consent or being coerced. It is similar to the way teachers are banned from relationships with students even if the students are of age; the danger of an authority figure abusing that authority to coerce someone into a relationship.

With siblings it is a less compelling argument but might still be considered a strong enough one. That would be decided should it go to court.

Then there is the fact that marriage creates a new family, legally speaking. With close family relations there is already a family, perhaps leading to the argument that close family members cannot do one of the things marriage is there for, creating a new family.

What about your statement about marriage being arbitrary? You said, "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.". Arbitrary means without a particular reason. You seem to be saying that if marriage is not monogamous there is no reason for it.

 

[Pop23]

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

Wait. If marriage is not between one man and one woman and sex is not a requirement of marriage it is arbitrary? Only monogamous opposite gender marriage has reasoning behind it?

Where did you dig that up?

The restriction denying all marriage between siblings is arbitrary if, as stated before, the prohibition was meant to stop incestuous marriage from producing defective bloodlines.

If not, explain why the prohibition existed in the first place.

How many times do I have to answer the same question? Beyond the possibility of inbreeding, marriage between close relations, particularly grandparents/parents and children, has a greater than usual danger of one party holding too much influence over the other. A parent or grandparent is an authority figure and children are often raised to do what those authority figures tell them. It leads to questions of abuse and even if the children are giving informed consent or being coerced. It is similar to the way teachers are banned from relationships with students even if the students are of age; the danger of an authority figure abusing that authority to coerce someone into a relationship.

With siblings it is a less compelling argument but might still be considered a strong enough one. That would be decided should it go to court.

Then there is the fact that marriage creates a new family, legally speaking. With close family relations there is already a family, perhaps leading to the argument that close family members cannot do one of the things marriage is there for, creating a new family.

What about your statement about marriage being arbitrary? You said, "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.". Arbitrary means without a particular reason. You seem to be saying that if marriage is not monogamous there is no reason for it.

In context, if marriage is not soley between a man and a woman, then the exclussion of all family members to marry is arbitrary at best.

Not too closely related is the function of the statute that protects society from the harm of defective bloodlines.

Same sex couples can not cause this harm, so excluding them, based on the possibility that opposite sex related couples may procreate is arbitrary.

In order to form a new family is also then absurd, as the state has no reasonable legal interest in the formation of what constitutes a family, when or how families create.

And in the end, marriage requires sex in the same way an LLC requires sex. They don't.

The government is arbitrarily denying access to one financially beneficial arrangement, but no others?

Why?

There is no compelling state interest unless you accept the notion is that either:

A. Tradition should rule the day

Or

B. Procreation

Choose

 

[Faun]

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

Wait. If marriage is not between one man and one woman and sex is not a requirement of marriage it is arbitrary? Only monogamous opposite gender marriage has reasoning behind it?

Where did you dig that up?

The restriction denying all marriage between siblings is arbitrary if, as stated before, the prohibition was meant to stop incestuous marriage from producing defective bloodlines.

If not, explain why the prohibition existed in the first place.

How many times do I have to answer the same question? Beyond the possibility of inbreeding, marriage between close relations, particularly grandparents/parents and children, has a greater than usual danger of one party holding too much influence over the other. A parent or grandparent is an authority figure and children are often raised to do what those authority figures tell them. It leads to questions of abuse and even if the children are giving informed consent or being coerced. It is similar to the way teachers are banned from relationships with students even if the students are of age; the danger of an authority figure abusing that authority to coerce someone into a relationship.

With siblings it is a less compelling argument but might still be considered a strong enough one. That would be decided should it go to court.

Then there is the fact that marriage creates a new family, legally speaking. With close family relations there is already a family, perhaps leading to the argument that close family members cannot do one of the things marriage is there for, creating a new family.

What about your statement about marriage being arbitrary? You said, "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.". Arbitrary means without a particular reason. You seem to be saying that if marriage is not monogamous there is no reason for it.

In context, if marriage is not soley between a man and a woman, then the exclussion of all family members to marry is arbitrary at best.

Not too closely related is the function of the statute that protects society from the harm of defective bloodlines.

Same sex couples can not cause this harm, so excluding them, based on the possibility that opposite sex related couples may procreate is arbitrary.

In order to form a new family is also then absurd, as the state has no reasonable legal interest in the formation of what constitutes a family, when or how families create.

And in the end, marriage requires sex in the same way an LLC requires sex. They don't.

The government is arbitrarily denying access to one financially beneficial arrangement, but no others?

Why?

There is no compelling state interest unless you accept the notion is that either:

A. Tradition should rule the day

Or

B. Procreation

Choose

Again, for the 413th time ... if your argument had merit, gay opposite-sex siblings would have been allowed to marry years ago.

You did think this through. That's ok.

 

[Boss]

Your assertion that homosexual marriage will be killed is only half right, what dies is marriage as a state licensed institution. It dies not for the reasons you state, but under its own weight.

Again, that is only the start of the entire plan. Before we can do anything, we first have to remove the state from official association with marriage as an institution. Unless that is done, we'll never accomplish the rest. The next phase is to systematically eliminate governmental benefits associated with marriage, like the tax deduction for married couples. This all has to be done state-by-state since marriage is still a state institution. Federal tax laws can be changed, we can also change Social Security survivor benefits and how they are distributed as well as estate taxes and whatnot. Eventually, we whittle down all the perks of being married to where there really aren't any. THAT is when gay marriage begins to die a slow death.

We're already talking about a relatively small contingent of people who are gay and want to marry. Once the benefit to marriage is removed, there really is no motivation anymore. Most gays are not interested in a religious ceremony to codify their homosexual relationship in the eyes of God... just not reality. A few little sentimental ferries may still want to do it just to be different, but we're down to single digits across the country by then... you won't even be aware of them.

 

[Montrovant]

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

Wait. If marriage is not between one man and one woman and sex is not a requirement of marriage it is arbitrary? Only monogamous opposite gender marriage has reasoning behind it?

Where did you dig that up?

The restriction denying all marriage between siblings is arbitrary if, as stated before, the prohibition was meant to stop incestuous marriage from producing defective bloodlines.

If not, explain why the prohibition existed in the first place.

How many times do I have to answer the same question? Beyond the possibility of inbreeding, marriage between close relations, particularly grandparents/parents and children, has a greater than usual danger of one party holding too much influence over the other. A parent or grandparent is an authority figure and children are often raised to do what those authority figures tell them. It leads to questions of abuse and even if the children are giving informed consent or being coerced. It is similar to the way teachers are banned from relationships with students even if the students are of age; the danger of an authority figure abusing that authority to coerce someone into a relationship.

With siblings it is a less compelling argument but might still be considered a strong enough one. That would be decided should it go to court.

Then there is the fact that marriage creates a new family, legally speaking. With close family relations there is already a family, perhaps leading to the argument that close family members cannot do one of the things marriage is there for, creating a new family.

What about your statement about marriage being arbitrary? You said, "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.". Arbitrary means without a particular reason. You seem to be saying that if marriage is not monogamous there is no reason for it.

In context, if marriage is not soley between a man and a woman, then the exclussion of all family members to marry is arbitrary at best.

Not too closely related is the function of the statute that protects society from the harm of defective bloodlines.

Same sex couples can not cause this harm, so excluding them, based on the possibility that opposite sex related couples may procreate is arbitrary.

In order to form a new family is also then absurd, as the state has no reasonable legal interest in the formation of what constitutes a family, when or how families create.

And in the end, marriage requires sex in the same way an LLC requires sex. They don't.

The government is arbitrarily denying access to one financially beneficial arrangement, but no others?

Why?

There is no compelling state interest unless you accept the notion is that either:

A. Tradition should rule the day

Or

B. Procreation

Choose

Your choice is a false one.

You seem to have a false impression of what the word arbitrary means.

I gave you a couple of reasons outside of genetic defects in children why the state might ban close family marriages. You appear to have decided that tradition and children are the only possible reasons for such a ban and don't want to hear any other reasons.

 

[Boss]

if your argument had merit, gay opposite-sex siblings would have been allowed to marry years ago.

Years ago we didn't have the precedent of the Ogeberfell ruling... we have it now. That changes things. It has now been established by SCOTUS that your right to marry can't be denied on the basis of sexuality... and in this specific case, gender. Before Ogeberfell, we could prohibit sibling marriage because of the humanitarian concerns over procreation.. doesn't matter about sexuality. Marriage was a union of a male and female, it's not anymore. So what about two gay brothers? What about two bisexual sisters? How about a brother and sister who can prove procreation wouldn't be a factor?

Before OddballFail, you were all warned this would be a problem and you laughed it off. You're still laughing it off while some of you casually mention that you are "still undecided" on issues like polygamy and sibling marriage. Yeah... we know... as soon as Whoopie, Oprah and Ellen dedicate a few TV shows to it, you'll all be carrying that banner next. Sewer rats actually have more morals than you people.

 

[Boss]

How many times do I have to answer the same question? Beyond the possibility of inbreeding, marriage between close relations, particularly grandparents/parents and children, has a greater than usual danger of one party holding too much influence over the other. A parent or grandparent is an authority figure and children are often raised to do what those authority figures tell them. It leads to questions of abuse and even if the children are giving informed consent or being coerced. It is similar to the way teachers are banned from relationships with students even if the students are of age; the danger of an authority figure abusing that authority to coerce someone into a relationship.

...has a greater than usual danger of one party holding too much influence over the other.
Speculative, subjective and morally-based discrimination.

...It leads to questions of abuse.
Speculative, subjective and morally-based discrimination.

It is similar to the way teachers are banned from relationships with students even if the students are of age.
They're not... it was determined this was a subjective and moral-based discrimination.

...the danger of an authority figure abusing that authority.
Speculative, subjective and morally-based discrimination.

Where is your Bible and hymnals? Do you have a funny hat too?

 

[Boss]

I gave you a couple of reasons outside of genetic defects in children why the state might ban close family marriages.

You gave generic morality-based opinions which are speculative and subjective.
Similar in many ways to the very objections made to gay marriage.

 

[Pop23]

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

Wait. If marriage is not between one man and one woman and sex is not a requirement of marriage it is arbitrary? Only monogamous opposite gender marriage has reasoning behind it?

Where did you dig that up?

The restriction denying all marriage between siblings is arbitrary if, as stated before, the prohibition was meant to stop incestuous marriage from producing defective bloodlines.

If not, explain why the prohibition existed in the first place.

How many times do I have to answer the same question? Beyond the possibility of inbreeding, marriage between close relations, particularly grandparents/parents and children, has a greater than usual danger of one party holding too much influence over the other. A parent or grandparent is an authority figure and children are often raised to do what those authority figures tell them. It leads to questions of abuse and even if the children are giving informed consent or being coerced. It is similar to the way teachers are banned from relationships with students even if the students are of age; the danger of an authority figure abusing that authority to coerce someone into a relationship.

With siblings it is a less compelling argument but might still be considered a strong enough one. That would be decided should it go to court.

Then there is the fact that marriage creates a new family, legally speaking. With close family relations there is already a family, perhaps leading to the argument that close family members cannot do one of the things marriage is there for, creating a new family.

What about your statement about marriage being arbitrary? You said, "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.". Arbitrary means without a particular reason. You seem to be saying that if marriage is not monogamous there is no reason for it.

In context, if marriage is not soley between a man and a woman, then the exclussion of all family members to marry is arbitrary at best.

Not too closely related is the function of the statute that protects society from the harm of defective bloodlines.

Same sex couples can not cause this harm, so excluding them, based on the possibility that opposite sex related couples may procreate is arbitrary.

In order to form a new family is also then absurd, as the state has no reasonable legal interest in the formation of what constitutes a family, when or how families create.

And in the end, marriage requires sex in the same way an LLC requires sex. They don't.

The government is arbitrarily denying access to one financially beneficial arrangement, but no others?

Why?

There is no compelling state interest unless you accept the notion is that either:

A. Tradition should rule the day

Or

B. Procreation

Choose

Your choice is a false one.

You seem to have a false impression of what the word arbitrary means.

I gave you a couple of reasons outside of genetic defects in children why the state might ban close family marriages. You appear to have decided that tradition and children are the only possible reasons for such a ban and don't want to hear any other reasons.

Yes, and they were answered.

I again ask about this traditional veiw you have.

The state allows family members to partner in an LLC

But prohibits them the right to associate in marriage.

Neither law requires sex.

What is the reasoning the state could allow one entity to exist, with family members as partners, but ban them from the other?

Come on, you know the answer, you just can't state it out loud and face the reality of what you've done.

 

[Pop23]

I gave you a couple of reasons outside of genetic defects in children why the state might ban close family marriages.

You gave generic morality-based opinions which are speculative and subjective.
Similar in many ways to the very objections made to gay marriage.

I pointed that out before, and also they use the same arguments that were meant to keep the races from inter marrying.

Interesting how I am now the progressive and they the bigots, racists and, in reality, homophobes.

 

[Pop23]

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

Wait. If marriage is not between one man and one woman and sex is not a requirement of marriage it is arbitrary? Only monogamous opposite gender marriage has reasoning behind it?

Where did you dig that up?

The restriction denying all marriage between siblings is arbitrary if, as stated before, the prohibition was meant to stop incestuous marriage from producing defective bloodlines.

If not, explain why the prohibition existed in the first place.

How many times do I have to answer the same question? Beyond the possibility of inbreeding, marriage between close relations, particularly grandparents/parents and children, has a greater than usual danger of one party holding too much influence over the other. A parent or grandparent is an authority figure and children are often raised to do what those authority figures tell them. It leads to questions of abuse and even if the children are giving informed consent or being coerced. It is similar to the way teachers are banned from relationships with students even if the students are of age; the danger of an authority figure abusing that authority to coerce someone into a relationship.

With siblings it is a less compelling argument but might still be considered a strong enough one. That would be decided should it go to court.

Then there is the fact that marriage creates a new family, legally speaking. With close family relations there is already a family, perhaps leading to the argument that close family members cannot do one of the things marriage is there for, creating a new family.

What about your statement about marriage being arbitrary? You said, "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.". Arbitrary means without a particular reason. You seem to be saying that if marriage is not monogamous there is no reason for it.

In context, if marriage is not soley between a man and a woman, then the exclussion of all family members to marry is arbitrary at best.

Not too closely related is the function of the statute that protects society from the harm of defective bloodlines.

Same sex couples can not cause this harm, so excluding them, based on the possibility that opposite sex related couples may procreate is arbitrary.

In order to form a new family is also then absurd, as the state has no reasonable legal interest in the formation of what constitutes a family, when or how families create.

And in the end, marriage requires sex in the same way an LLC requires sex. They don't.

The government is arbitrarily denying access to one financially beneficial arrangement, but no others?

Why?

There is no compelling state interest unless you accept the notion is that either:

A. Tradition should rule the day

Or

B. Procreation

Choose

Again, for the 413th time ... if your argument had merit, gay opposite-sex siblings would have been allowed to marry years ago.

You did think this through. That's ok.

And as I stated before.......

Dredd Scott was overturned

 

[Faun]

if your argument had merit, gay opposite-sex siblings would have been allowed to marry years ago.

Years ago we didn't have the precedent of the Ogeberfell ruling... we have it now. That changes things. It has now been established by SCOTUS that your right to marry can't be denied on the basis of sexuality... and in this specific case, gender. Before Ogeberfell, we could prohibit sibling marriage because of the humanitarian concerns over procreation.. doesn't matter about sexuality. Marriage was a union of a male and female, it's not anymore. So what about two gay brothers? What about two bisexual sisters? How about a brother and sister who can prove procreation wouldn't be a factor?

Obergefell has no bearing on a gay man wanting to marry his gay sister. That would be a man and a woman wanting to marry each other in a country where men were allowed since it's inception. Yet never allowed and still not allowed. Obergfell does not impact that at all.

Before OddballFail, you were all warned this would be a problem and you laughed it off. You're still laughing it off while some of you casually mention that you are "still undecided" on issues like polygamy and sibling marriage. Yeah... we know... as soon as Whoopie, Oprah and Ellen dedicate a few TV shows to it, you'll all be carrying that banner next. Sewer rats actually have more morals than you people.

I couldn't care less if what deranged folks like you think of my morals. And there is no problem. You only think there is because you are fucking deranged.

C'est la vie

 

[Faun]

Wait. If marriage is not between one man and one woman and sex is not a requirement of marriage it is arbitrary? Only monogamous opposite gender marriage has reasoning behind it?

Where did you dig that up?

The restriction denying all marriage between siblings is arbitrary if, as stated before, the prohibition was meant to stop incestuous marriage from producing defective bloodlines.

If not, explain why the prohibition existed in the first place.

How many times do I have to answer the same question? Beyond the possibility of inbreeding, marriage between close relations, particularly grandparents/parents and children, has a greater than usual danger of one party holding too much influence over the other. A parent or grandparent is an authority figure and children are often raised to do what those authority figures tell them. It leads to questions of abuse and even if the children are giving informed consent or being coerced. It is similar to the way teachers are banned from relationships with students even if the students are of age; the danger of an authority figure abusing that authority to coerce someone into a relationship.

With siblings it is a less compelling argument but might still be considered a strong enough one. That would be decided should it go to court.

Then there is the fact that marriage creates a new family, legally speaking. With close family relations there is already a family, perhaps leading to the argument that close family members cannot do one of the things marriage is there for, creating a new family.

What about your statement about marriage being arbitrary? You said, "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.". Arbitrary means without a particular reason. You seem to be saying that if marriage is not monogamous there is no reason for it.

In context, if marriage is not soley between a man and a woman, then the exclussion of all family members to marry is arbitrary at best.

Not too closely related is the function of the statute that protects society from the harm of defective bloodlines.

Same sex couples can not cause this harm, so excluding them, based on the possibility that opposite sex related couples may procreate is arbitrary.

In order to form a new family is also then absurd, as the state has no reasonable legal interest in the formation of what constitutes a family, when or how families create.

And in the end, marriage requires sex in the same way an LLC requires sex. They don't.

The government is arbitrarily denying access to one financially beneficial arrangement, but no others?

Why?

There is no compelling state interest unless you accept the notion is that either:

A. Tradition should rule the day

Or

B. Procreation

Choose

Again, for the 413th time ... if your argument had merit, gay opposite-sex siblings would have been allowed to marry years ago.

You did think this through. That's ok.

And as I stated before.......

Dredd Scott was overturned

Good for you.

 

[Pop23]

if your argument had merit, gay opposite-sex siblings would have been allowed to marry years ago.

Years ago we didn't have the precedent of the Ogeberfell ruling... we have it now. That changes things. It has now been established by SCOTUS that your right to marry can't be denied on the basis of sexuality... and in this specific case, gender. Before Ogeberfell, we could prohibit sibling marriage because of the humanitarian concerns over procreation.. doesn't matter about sexuality. Marriage was a union of a male and female, it's not anymore. So what about two gay brothers? What about two bisexual sisters? How about a brother and sister who can prove procreation wouldn't be a factor?

Obergefell has no bearing on a gay man wanting to marry his gay sister. That would be a man and a woman wanting to marry each other in a country where men were allowed since it's inception. Yet never allowed and still not allowed. Obergfell does not impact that at all.

Before OddballFail, you were all warned this would be a problem and you laughed it off. You're still laughing it off while some of you casually mention that you are "still undecided" on issues like polygamy and sibling marriage. Yeah... we know... as soon as Whoopie, Oprah and Ellen dedicate a few TV shows to it, you'll all be carrying that banner next. Sewer rats actually have more morals than you people.

I couldn't care less if what deranged folks like you think of my morals. And there is no problem. You only think there is because you are fucking deranged.

C'est la vie

Can that gay man contract with his gay sister in an LLC? Of course, there is no compelling state interest in denying this couple this right. Sexual contact is not a requirement of the formation of the partnership.

Can the gay man contract with his gay sister in the formation of a marriage partnership? Sexual contact is not a requirement in the formation of the partnership.


What is the compelling state interest in denial of the right.

Easily answered prior to Obergfell. Not so easy now.

You understand you are making the same argument that kept blacks from marrying whites.

Making you a racist.

How sad for you

And me the progressive

 

[Pop23]

Where did you dig that up?

The restriction denying all marriage between siblings is arbitrary if, as stated before, the prohibition was meant to stop incestuous marriage from producing defective bloodlines.

If not, explain why the prohibition existed in the first place.

How many times do I have to answer the same question? Beyond the possibility of inbreeding, marriage between close relations, particularly grandparents/parents and children, has a greater than usual danger of one party holding too much influence over the other. A parent or grandparent is an authority figure and children are often raised to do what those authority figures tell them. It leads to questions of abuse and even if the children are giving informed consent or being coerced. It is similar to the way teachers are banned from relationships with students even if the students are of age; the danger of an authority figure abusing that authority to coerce someone into a relationship.

With siblings it is a less compelling argument but might still be considered a strong enough one. That would be decided should it go to court.

Then there is the fact that marriage creates a new family, legally speaking. With close family relations there is already a family, perhaps leading to the argument that close family members cannot do one of the things marriage is there for, creating a new family.

What about your statement about marriage being arbitrary? You said, "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.". Arbitrary means without a particular reason. You seem to be saying that if marriage is not monogamous there is no reason for it.

In context, if marriage is not soley between a man and a woman, then the exclussion of all family members to marry is arbitrary at best.

Not too closely related is the function of the statute that protects society from the harm of defective bloodlines.

Same sex couples can not cause this harm, so excluding them, based on the possibility that opposite sex related couples may procreate is arbitrary.

In order to form a new family is also then absurd, as the state has no reasonable legal interest in the formation of what constitutes a family, when or how families create.

And in the end, marriage requires sex in the same way an LLC requires sex. They don't.

The government is arbitrarily denying access to one financially beneficial arrangement, but no others?

Why?

There is no compelling state interest unless you accept the notion is that either:

A. Tradition should rule the day

Or

B. Procreation

Choose

Again, for the 413th time ... if your argument had merit, gay opposite-sex siblings would have been allowed to marry years ago.

You did think this through. That's ok.

And as I stated before.......

Dredd Scott was overturned

Good for you.

I like short concession speaches.

Thanks

 

[Faun]

How many times do I have to answer the same question? Beyond the possibility of inbreeding, marriage between close relations, particularly grandparents/parents and children, has a greater than usual danger of one party holding too much influence over the other. A parent or grandparent is an authority figure and children are often raised to do what those authority figures tell them. It leads to questions of abuse and even if the children are giving informed consent or being coerced. It is similar to the way teachers are banned from relationships with students even if the students are of age; the danger of an authority figure abusing that authority to coerce someone into a relationship.

With siblings it is a less compelling argument but might still be considered a strong enough one. That would be decided should it go to court.

Then there is the fact that marriage creates a new family, legally speaking. With close family relations there is already a family, perhaps leading to the argument that close family members cannot do one of the things marriage is there for, creating a new family.

What about your statement about marriage being arbitrary? You said, "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.". Arbitrary means without a particular reason. You seem to be saying that if marriage is not monogamous there is no reason for it.

In context, if marriage is not soley between a man and a woman, then the exclussion of all family members to marry is arbitrary at best.

Not too closely related is the function of the statute that protects society from the harm of defective bloodlines.

Same sex couples can not cause this harm, so excluding them, based on the possibility that opposite sex related couples may procreate is arbitrary.

In order to form a new family is also then absurd, as the state has no reasonable legal interest in the formation of what constitutes a family, when or how families create.

And in the end, marriage requires sex in the same way an LLC requires sex. They don't.

The government is arbitrarily denying access to one financially beneficial arrangement, but no others?

Why?

There is no compelling state interest unless you accept the notion is that either:

A. Tradition should rule the day

Or

B. Procreation

Choose

Again, for the 413th time ... if your argument had merit, gay opposite-sex siblings would have been allowed to marry years ago.

You did think this through. That's ok.

And as I stated before.......

Dredd Scott was overturned

Good for you.

I like short concession speaches.

Thanks

Sure, uh-huh. nothing makes you feel better than thinking you've won, right?

 

[Faun]

if your argument had merit, gay opposite-sex siblings would have been allowed to marry years ago.

Years ago we didn't have the precedent of the Ogeberfell ruling... we have it now. That changes things. It has now been established by SCOTUS that your right to marry can't be denied on the basis of sexuality... and in this specific case, gender. Before Ogeberfell, we could prohibit sibling marriage because of the humanitarian concerns over procreation.. doesn't matter about sexuality. Marriage was a union of a male and female, it's not anymore. So what about two gay brothers? What about two bisexual sisters? How about a brother and sister who can prove procreation wouldn't be a factor?

Obergefell has no bearing on a gay man wanting to marry his gay sister. That would be a man and a woman wanting to marry each other in a country where men were allowed since it's inception. Yet never allowed and still not allowed. Obergfell does not impact that at all.

Before OddballFail, you were all warned this would be a problem and you laughed it off. You're still laughing it off while some of you casually mention that you are "still undecided" on issues like polygamy and sibling marriage. Yeah... we know... as soon as Whoopie, Oprah and Ellen dedicate a few TV shows to it, you'll all be carrying that banner next. Sewer rats actually have more morals than you people.

I couldn't care less if what deranged folks like you think of my morals. And there is no problem. You only think there is because you are fucking deranged.

C'est la vie

Can that gay man contract with his gay sister in an LLC? Of course, there is no compelling state interest in denying this couple this right. Sexual contact is not a requirement of the formation of the partnership.

Can the gay man contract with his gay sister in the formation of a marriage partnership? Sexual contact is not a requirement in the formation of the partnership.


What is the compelling state interest in denial of the right.

Easily answered prior to Obergfell. Not so easy now.

You understand you are making the same argument that kept blacks from marrying whites.

Making you a racist.

How sad for you

And me the progressive

You truly are dumb enough to believe a marriage is nothing more than an LLC.

Since you believe this, explain why no marriages have LLC following their name?

 

[Pop23]

if your argument had merit, gay opposite-sex siblings would have been allowed to marry years ago.

Years ago we didn't have the precedent of the Ogeberfell ruling... we have it now. That changes things. It has now been established by SCOTUS that your right to marry can't be denied on the basis of sexuality... and in this specific case, gender. Before Ogeberfell, we could prohibit sibling marriage because of the humanitarian concerns over procreation.. doesn't matter about sexuality. Marriage was a union of a male and female, it's not anymore. So what about two gay brothers? What about two bisexual sisters? How about a brother and sister who can prove procreation wouldn't be a factor?

Obergefell has no bearing on a gay man wanting to marry his gay sister. That would be a man and a woman wanting to marry each other in a country where men were allowed since it's inception. Yet never allowed and still not allowed. Obergfell does not impact that at all.

Before OddballFail, you were all warned this would be a problem and you laughed it off. You're still laughing it off while some of you casually mention that you are "still undecided" on issues like polygamy and sibling marriage. Yeah... we know... as soon as Whoopie, Oprah and Ellen dedicate a few TV shows to it, you'll all be carrying that banner next. Sewer rats actually have more morals than you people.

I couldn't care less if what deranged folks like you think of my morals. And there is no problem. You only think there is because you are fucking deranged.

C'est la vie

Can that gay man contract with his gay sister in an LLC? Of course, there is no compelling state interest in denying this couple this right. Sexual contact is not a requirement of the formation of the partnership.

Can the gay man contract with his gay sister in the formation of a marriage partnership? Sexual contact is not a requirement in the formation of the partnership.


What is the compelling state interest in denial of the right.

Easily answered prior to Obergfell. Not so easy now.

You understand you are making the same argument that kept blacks from marrying whites.

Making you a racist.

How sad for you

And me the progressive

You truly are dumb enough to believe a marriage is nothing more than an LLC.

Since you believe this, explain why no marriages have LLC following their name?

Not until you explain why you think sex is a requirement of marriage.