Judge declines to marry same sex on religious grounds

[Pop23]

Siblings could not Marry, soon they will. Not good
!

So that is the reason why you oppose sibling marriage?

No wonder you are convinced that sibling marriage is inevitable- when your only argument is that sibling marriage is 'Not good'.

Yeah that won't work for the states.

HUH?

You do realize (maybe I'm making a huge assumption), that inbreeding is not a good thing right?

So allowing sterile siblings to marry, because of equal protection laws would allow fertile siblings to marry.

Look, if two fertile same sex siblings are allowed to marry, what is the compelling state interest to deny?

LOL- you do dance well.

You have said that because of 'same gender' marriage that there is no longer any argument against 'sibling marriage'- because of procreation.

Yet when I eliminated 'procreation' you are still against 'sibling marriage', because you argue that if we allow non-procreative siblings to marry then 'equal protection' means that we have to allow fertile siblings to marry.

Which comes back around to you saying that procreation is not a valid argument to prevent siblings from marrying.

IF the procreation element is valid - then there is no argument against non-procreative couples from wedding.

And by the way- fertile first cousins cannot marry in Wisconsin- infertile first cousins can.

No conflict with "Equal Protection" laws.

God you are loony, eliminating procreation from those who could not marry does nothing. Now, how do you stop them from marrying now?

Before you could ban them, now you can't.

And, how many times have I posted that the cousins had to be sterile? Dozens of time maybe?

As you have said- your opposition to sibling marriage is for procreation.

Except you are also opposed to sibling marriage if they cannot procreate.

Meaning you must have some other reason to be against sibling marriage other than procreation.

Dood, wrap this around your head, if one is legalized, you can't prohibit the other. Fertility does not matter

I need zero other reason.

 

[Pop23]

Actually the number two is not arbitrary at all...

The Number comes from the genitals at issue, where one penis joins with one vagina, therein forming from two distinct bodies, one singular body... that number is therefore a central component of human physiology, which predicates the construct of Marriage.

From a strictly bioilogical perspective - polygamy is the winning roll of dice, so yes..it's very arbritrary.

Polygamy is simply another demonstration of the same perversion that homosexuals are mired in... just from the perspective of a heterosexual glutton for punishment.

As you probably know, Warren Jeff's cult still practice polygamy in Colorado City, AZ, and no one can do anything about it. Warren Jeff's continues to rule his cult from his prison cell and no one can do anything about it.

They are not civilly married.

Why, was there a fight at the wedding?

When isn't there?

Ever seen a wedding bill?

 

[Pop23]

So that is the reason why you oppose sibling marriage?

No wonder you are convinced that sibling marriage is inevitable- when your only argument is that sibling marriage is 'Not good'.

Yeah that won't work for the states.

HUH?

You do realize (maybe I'm making a huge assumption), that inbreeding is not a good thing right?

So allowing sterile siblings to marry, because of equal protection laws would allow fertile siblings to marry.

Look, if two fertile same sex siblings are allowed to marry, what is the compelling state interest to deny?

There can't be one

You then can't exclude any siblings from THE RIGHT.

You can then claim that the requirement be that the straight siblings must prove they are sterile.

You realize that, since this is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, you can't make ANYBODY jump though hoops to excersize that CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

Ever hear of the poll tax? How'd that work out?

Now take a breath and realize YOUR SIDE created the arguments, if successful once, there is zero reason it won't be successful again!

If I failed to thank your side for opening the door to plural and incesturous marriage...........



It's cuz I dont.

Pop is still trying to figure out some argument about why he is against plural or sibling marriage that is beyond "Because its icky"

Geez, how many times have I brought up inbreeding?

Maybe you don't get it cuz you're inbred?

You bring up inbreeding every time you don't want to explain why you think non-fertile siblings shouldn't marry.

Your reading comprehension skills are seriously lacking.

 

[Syriusly]

So that is the reason why you oppose sibling marriage?

No wonder you are convinced that sibling marriage is inevitable- when your only argument is that sibling marriage is 'Not good'.

Yeah that won't work for the states.

HUH?

You do realize (maybe I'm making a huge assumption), that inbreeding is not a good thing right?

So allowing sterile siblings to marry, because of equal protection laws would allow fertile siblings to marry.

Look, if two fertile same sex siblings are allowed to marry, what is the compelling state interest to deny?

LOL- you do dance well.

You have said that because of 'same gender' marriage that there is no longer any argument against 'sibling marriage'- because of procreation.

Yet when I eliminated 'procreation' you are still against 'sibling marriage', because you argue that if we allow non-procreative siblings to marry then 'equal protection' means that we have to allow fertile siblings to marry.

Which comes back around to you saying that procreation is not a valid argument to prevent siblings from marrying.

IF the procreation element is valid - then there is no argument against non-procreative couples from wedding.

And by the way- fertile first cousins cannot marry in Wisconsin- infertile first cousins can.

No conflict with "Equal Protection" laws.

God you are loony, eliminating procreation from those who could not marry does nothing. Now, how do you stop them from marrying now?

Before you could ban them, now you can't.

And, how many times have I posted that the cousins had to be sterile? Dozens of time maybe?

As you have said- your opposition to sibling marriage is for procreation.

Except you are also opposed to sibling marriage if they cannot procreate.

Meaning you must have some other reason to be against sibling marriage other than procreation.

Dood, wrap this around your head, if one is legalized, you can't prohibit the other. Fertility does not matter

I need zero other reason.

Sure can- first cousins can marry in Wisconsin- as long as they can't procreate.

And they prohibit first cousins who are not able to procreate from marrying.

The same could apply to siblings- but States- all States prohibit all Siblings from marrying- fertile or not?

Why?

 

[Pop23]

HUH?

You do realize (maybe I'm making a huge assumption), that inbreeding is not a good thing right?

So allowing sterile siblings to marry, because of equal protection laws would allow fertile siblings to marry.

Look, if two fertile same sex siblings are allowed to marry, what is the compelling state interest to deny?

LOL- you do dance well.

You have said that because of 'same gender' marriage that there is no longer any argument against 'sibling marriage'- because of procreation.

Yet when I eliminated 'procreation' you are still against 'sibling marriage', because you argue that if we allow non-procreative siblings to marry then 'equal protection' means that we have to allow fertile siblings to marry.

Which comes back around to you saying that procreation is not a valid argument to prevent siblings from marrying.

IF the procreation element is valid - then there is no argument against non-procreative couples from wedding.

And by the way- fertile first cousins cannot marry in Wisconsin- infertile first cousins can.

No conflict with "Equal Protection" laws.

God you are loony, eliminating procreation from those who could not marry does nothing. Now, how do you stop them from marrying now?

Before you could ban them, now you can't.

And, how many times have I posted that the cousins had to be sterile? Dozens of time maybe?

As you have said- your opposition to sibling marriage is for procreation.

Except you are also opposed to sibling marriage if they cannot procreate.

Meaning you must have some other reason to be against sibling marriage other than procreation.

Dood, wrap this around your head, if one is legalized, you can't prohibit the other. Fertility does not matter

I need zero other reason.

Sure can- first cousins can marry in Wisconsin- as long as they can't procreate.

And they prohibit first cousins who are not able to procreate from marrying.

The same could apply to siblings- but States- all States prohibit all Siblings from marrying- fertile or not?

Why?

i have no knowledge as to why Wisconsin allowed cousin, but not sibling except they might have had a compelling state interest in it. I simply do not know.

All states recognized the cousin marriage issued in Wisconsin and ALL COUSINS THAT MARRIED WERE UNDER THE SAME REQUIREMENT.

Now, INCLUSSION of same sex makes the requirement unworkable. Same sex cousins would have fewer restrictions than straight, so you now have the conflict with equal protection, next step, same sex sibling

 

[Syriusly]

LOL- you do dance well.

You have said that because of 'same gender' marriage that there is no longer any argument against 'sibling marriage'- because of procreation.

Yet when I eliminated 'procreation' you are still against 'sibling marriage', because you argue that if we allow non-procreative siblings to marry then 'equal protection' means that we have to allow fertile siblings to marry.

Which comes back around to you saying that procreation is not a valid argument to prevent siblings from marrying.

IF the procreation element is valid - then there is no argument against non-procreative couples from wedding.

And by the way- fertile first cousins cannot marry in Wisconsin- infertile first cousins can.

No conflict with "Equal Protection" laws.

God you are loony, eliminating procreation from those who could not marry does nothing. Now, how do you stop them from marrying now?

Before you could ban them, now you can't.

And, how many times have I posted that the cousins had to be sterile? Dozens of time maybe?

As you have said- your opposition to sibling marriage is for procreation.

Except you are also opposed to sibling marriage if they cannot procreate.

Meaning you must have some other reason to be against sibling marriage other than procreation.

Dood, wrap this around your head, if one is legalized, you can't prohibit the other. Fertility does not matter

I need zero other reason.

Sure can- first cousins can marry in Wisconsin- as long as they can't procreate.

And they prohibit first cousins who are not able to procreate from marrying.

The same could apply to siblings- but States- all States prohibit all Siblings from marrying- fertile or not?

Why?

i have no knowledge as to why Wisconsin allowed cousin, but not sibling except they might have had a compelling state interest in it. I simply do not know.

And the compelling State interest in that case would not be procreation then.

IF the compelling argument to deny marriage to siblings was only procreation- then Wisconsin would have allowed siblings to marry- IF they were sterile just as First Cousins can marry.

Therefore- while procreation is one of the compelling arguments- it is not the only compelling arguments.

 

[Syriusly]

LOL- you do dance well.

You have said that because of 'same gender' marriage that there is no longer any argument against 'sibling marriage'- because of procreation.

Yet when I eliminated 'procreation' you are still against 'sibling marriage', because you argue that if we allow non-procreative siblings to marry then 'equal protection' means that we have to allow fertile siblings to marry.

Which comes back around to you saying that procreation is not a valid argument to prevent siblings from marrying.

IF the procreation element is valid - then there is no argument against non-procreative couples from wedding.

And by the way- fertile first cousins cannot marry in Wisconsin- infertile first cousins can.

No conflict with "Equal Protection" laws.

God you are loony, eliminating procreation from those who could not marry does nothing. Now, how do you stop them from marrying now?

Before you could ban them, now you can't.

And, how many times have I posted that the cousins had to be sterile? Dozens of time maybe?

As you have said- your opposition to sibling marriage is for procreation.

Except you are also opposed to sibling marriage if they cannot procreate.

Meaning you must have some other reason to be against sibling marriage other than procreation.

Dood, wrap this around your head, if one is legalized, you can't prohibit the other. Fertility does not matter

I need zero other reason.

Sure can- first cousins can marry in Wisconsin- as long as they can't procreate.

And they prohibit first cousins who are not able to procreate from marrying.

The same could apply to siblings- but States- all States prohibit all Siblings from marrying- fertile or not?

Why?

All states recognized the cousin marriage issued in Wisconsin and ALL COUSINS THAT MARRIED WERE UNDER THE SAME REQUIREMENT.

No- not all states do. Strike 2
Cousin marriage law in the United States by state - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

3 states do not recognize first cousin marriage no matter where they were married.

 

[Syriusly]

LOL- you do dance well.

You have said that because of 'same gender' marriage that there is no longer any argument against 'sibling marriage'- because of procreation.

Yet when I eliminated 'procreation' you are still against 'sibling marriage', because you argue that if we allow non-procreative siblings to marry then 'equal protection' means that we have to allow fertile siblings to marry.

Which comes back around to you saying that procreation is not a valid argument to prevent siblings from marrying.

IF the procreation element is valid - then there is no argument against non-procreative couples from wedding.

And by the way- fertile first cousins cannot marry in Wisconsin- infertile first cousins can.

No conflict with "Equal Protection" laws.

God you are loony, eliminating procreation from those who could not marry does nothing. Now, how do you stop them from marrying now?

Before you could ban them, now you can't.

And, how many times have I posted that the cousins had to be sterile? Dozens of time maybe?

As you have said- your opposition to sibling marriage is for procreation.

Except you are also opposed to sibling marriage if they cannot procreate.

Meaning you must have some other reason to be against sibling marriage other than procreation.

Dood, wrap this around your head, if one is legalized, you can't prohibit the other. Fertility does not matter

I need zero other reason.

Sure can- first cousins can marry in Wisconsin- as long as they can't procreate.

And they prohibit first cousins who are not able to procreate from marrying.

The same could apply to siblings- but States- all States prohibit all Siblings from marrying- fertile or not?

Why?

Now, INCLUSSION of same sex makes the requirement unworkable. Same sex cousins would have fewer restrictions than straight, so you now have the conflict with equal protection, next step, same sex sibling

No- again- you keep saying that but it doesn't make it so.

Same sex cousins and opposite sex cousins - the same law applies.

Massachusetts courts ruled that same gender couples could get married 11 years ago- still no sibling marriages- because your argument has no legs.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

LOL- you do dance well.

You have said that because of 'same gender' marriage that there is no longer any argument against 'sibling marriage'- because of procreation.

Yet when I eliminated 'procreation' you are still against 'sibling marriage', because you argue that if we allow non-procreative siblings to marry then 'equal protection' means that we have to allow fertile siblings to marry.

Which comes back around to you saying that procreation is not a valid argument to prevent siblings from marrying.

IF the procreation element is valid - then there is no argument against non-procreative couples from wedding.

And by the way- fertile first cousins cannot marry in Wisconsin- infertile first cousins can.

No conflict with "Equal Protection" laws.

God you are loony, eliminating procreation from those who could not marry does nothing. Now, how do you stop them from marrying now?

Before you could ban them, now you can't.

And, how many times have I posted that the cousins had to be sterile? Dozens of time maybe?

As you have said- your opposition to sibling marriage is for procreation.

Except you are also opposed to sibling marriage if they cannot procreate.

Meaning you must have some other reason to be against sibling marriage other than procreation.

Dood, wrap this around your head, if one is legalized, you can't prohibit the other. Fertility does not matter

I need zero other reason.

Sure can- first cousins can marry in Wisconsin- as long as they can't procreate.

And they prohibit first cousins who are not able to procreate from marrying.

The same could apply to siblings- but States- all States prohibit all Siblings from marrying- fertile or not?

Why?

i have no knowledge as to why Wisconsin allowed cousin, but not sibling except they might have had a compelling state interest in it. I simply do not know.

All states recognized the cousin marriage issued in Wisconsin and ALL COUSINS THAT MARRIED WERE UNDER THE SAME REQUIREMENT.

Now, INCLUSSION of same sex makes the requirement unworkable. Same sex cousins would have fewer restrictions than straight, so you now have the conflict with equal protection, next step, same sex sibling

Tell you what big guy. Why don't you have your state representative introduce legislation for same sex siblings to marry, or file a court petition citing the fact that unrelated same sex couples can now marry. Let us know how that goes.

 

[Pop23]

God you are loony, eliminating procreation from those who could not marry does nothing. Now, how do you stop them from marrying now?

Before you could ban them, now you can't.

And, how many times have I posted that the cousins had to be sterile? Dozens of time maybe?

As you have said- your opposition to sibling marriage is for procreation.

Except you are also opposed to sibling marriage if they cannot procreate.

Meaning you must have some other reason to be against sibling marriage other than procreation.

Dood, wrap this around your head, if one is legalized, you can't prohibit the other. Fertility does not matter

I need zero other reason.

Sure can- first cousins can marry in Wisconsin- as long as they can't procreate.

And they prohibit first cousins who are not able to procreate from marrying.

The same could apply to siblings- but States- all States prohibit all Siblings from marrying- fertile or not?

Why?

i have no knowledge as to why Wisconsin allowed cousin, but not sibling except they might have had a compelling state interest in it. I simply do not know.

And the compelling State interest in that case would not be procreation then.

IF the compelling argument to deny marriage to siblings was only procreation- then Wisconsin would have allowed siblings to marry- IF they were sterile just as First Cousins can marry.

Therefore- while procreation is one of the compelling arguments- it is not the only compelling arguments.

I found this while researching the question. Appears this attorney(?) actually thinks that the lifting of same sex marriage law actually has made sibling marriage legal in 5 states.

Here's the link

Full Marriage Equality From a Lawyer

 

[Pop23]

God you are loony, eliminating procreation from those who could not marry does nothing. Now, how do you stop them from marrying now?

Before you could ban them, now you can't.

And, how many times have I posted that the cousins had to be sterile? Dozens of time maybe?

As you have said- your opposition to sibling marriage is for procreation.

Except you are also opposed to sibling marriage if they cannot procreate.

Meaning you must have some other reason to be against sibling marriage other than procreation.

Dood, wrap this around your head, if one is legalized, you can't prohibit the other. Fertility does not matter

I need zero other reason.

Sure can- first cousins can marry in Wisconsin- as long as they can't procreate.

And they prohibit first cousins who are not able to procreate from marrying.

The same could apply to siblings- but States- all States prohibit all Siblings from marrying- fertile or not?

Why?

i have no knowledge as to why Wisconsin allowed cousin, but not sibling except they might have had a compelling state interest in it. I simply do not know.

All states recognized the cousin marriage issued in Wisconsin and ALL COUSINS THAT MARRIED WERE UNDER THE SAME REQUIREMENT.

Now, INCLUSSION of same sex makes the requirement unworkable. Same sex cousins would have fewer restrictions than straight, so you now have the conflict with equal protection, next step, same sex sibling

Tell you what big guy. Why don't you have your state representative introduce legislation for same sex siblings to marry, or file a court petition citing the fact that unrelated same sex couples can now marry. Let us know how that goes.

Why would I do that when my most recent meeting with them was to express my concern that same sex marriage would lead to both sibling marriage or plural marriage or both.

After running them through the scenerio, they both seemed concerned.

Not sure they can do anything about it as equal protection is a bitch but the steak was great though.

 

[Syriusly]

As you have said- your opposition to sibling marriage is for procreation.

Except you are also opposed to sibling marriage if they cannot procreate.

Meaning you must have some other reason to be against sibling marriage other than procreation.

Dood, wrap this around your head, if one is legalized, you can't prohibit the other. Fertility does not matter

I need zero other reason.

Sure can- first cousins can marry in Wisconsin- as long as they can't procreate.

And they prohibit first cousins who are not able to procreate from marrying.

The same could apply to siblings- but States- all States prohibit all Siblings from marrying- fertile or not?

Why?

i have no knowledge as to why Wisconsin allowed cousin, but not sibling except they might have had a compelling state interest in it. I simply do not know.

And the compelling State interest in that case would not be procreation then.

IF the compelling argument to deny marriage to siblings was only procreation- then Wisconsin would have allowed siblings to marry- IF they were sterile just as First Cousins can marry.

Therefore- while procreation is one of the compelling arguments- it is not the only compelling arguments.

I found this while researching the question. Appears this attorney(?) actually thinks that the lifting of same sex marriage law actually has made sibling marriage legal in 5 states.

Here's the link

Full Marriage Equality From a Lawyer

Yeah- that lawyer filed that brief with the 9th Circuit of Appeals- which ignored it.

Apparently the 9th Circuit of Appeals was not impressed by his legal acumen- why should I be?

 

[Syriusly]

As you have said- your opposition to sibling marriage is for procreation.

Except you are also opposed to sibling marriage if they cannot procreate.

Meaning you must have some other reason to be against sibling marriage other than procreation.

Dood, wrap this around your head, if one is legalized, you can't prohibit the other. Fertility does not matter

I need zero other reason.

Sure can- first cousins can marry in Wisconsin- as long as they can't procreate.

And they prohibit first cousins who are not able to procreate from marrying.

The same could apply to siblings- but States- all States prohibit all Siblings from marrying- fertile or not?

Why?

i have no knowledge as to why Wisconsin allowed cousin, but not sibling except they might have had a compelling state interest in it. I simply do not know.

All states recognized the cousin marriage issued in Wisconsin and ALL COUSINS THAT MARRIED WERE UNDER THE SAME REQUIREMENT.

Now, INCLUSSION of same sex makes the requirement unworkable. Same sex cousins would have fewer restrictions than straight, so you now have the conflict with equal protection, next step, same sex sibling

Tell you what big guy. Why don't you have your state representative introduce legislation for same sex siblings to marry, or file a court petition citing the fact that unrelated same sex couples can now marry. Let us know how that goes.

Why would I do that when my most recent meeting with them was to express my concern that same sex marriage would lead to both sibling marriage or plural marriage or both.

After running them through the scenerio, they both seemed concerned.
.

I am sure that they were- they were wondering how they could get this guy blathering nonsense out of their offices......

 

[Pop23]

God you are loony, eliminating procreation from those who could not marry does nothing. Now, how do you stop them from marrying now?

Before you could ban them, now you can't.

And, how many times have I posted that the cousins had to be sterile? Dozens of time maybe?

As you have said- your opposition to sibling marriage is for procreation.

Except you are also opposed to sibling marriage if they cannot procreate.

Meaning you must have some other reason to be against sibling marriage other than procreation.

Dood, wrap this around your head, if one is legalized, you can't prohibit the other. Fertility does not matter

I need zero other reason.

Sure can- first cousins can marry in Wisconsin- as long as they can't procreate.

And they prohibit first cousins who are not able to procreate from marrying.

The same could apply to siblings- but States- all States prohibit all Siblings from marrying- fertile or not?

Why?

Now, INCLUSSION of same sex makes the requirement unworkable. Same sex cousins would have fewer restrictions than straight, so you now have the conflict with equal protection, next step, same sex sibling

No- again- you keep saying that but it doesn't make it so.

Same sex cousins and opposite sex cousins - the same law applies.

Massachusetts courts ruled that same gender couples could get married 11 years ago- still no sibling marriages- because your argument has no legs.

Because nobody has attempted yet?

Nice try

 

[Pop23]

Dood, wrap this around your head, if one is legalized, you can't prohibit the other. Fertility does not matter

I need zero other reason.

Sure can- first cousins can marry in Wisconsin- as long as they can't procreate.

And they prohibit first cousins who are not able to procreate from marrying.

The same could apply to siblings- but States- all States prohibit all Siblings from marrying- fertile or not?

Why?

i have no knowledge as to why Wisconsin allowed cousin, but not sibling except they might have had a compelling state interest in it. I simply do not know.

All states recognized the cousin marriage issued in Wisconsin and ALL COUSINS THAT MARRIED WERE UNDER THE SAME REQUIREMENT.

Now, INCLUSSION of same sex makes the requirement unworkable. Same sex cousins would have fewer restrictions than straight, so you now have the conflict with equal protection, next step, same sex sibling

Tell you what big guy. Why don't you have your state representative introduce legislation for same sex siblings to marry, or file a court petition citing the fact that unrelated same sex couples can now marry. Let us know how that goes.

Why would I do that when my most recent meeting with them was to express my concern that same sex marriage would lead to both sibling marriage or plural marriage or both.

After running them through the scenerio, they both seemed concerned.
.

I am sure that they were- they were wondering how they could get this guy blathering nonsense out of their offices......

The steak and drinks did the trick, I guess

 

[Pop23]

Dood, wrap this around your head, if one is legalized, you can't prohibit the other. Fertility does not matter

I need zero other reason.

Sure can- first cousins can marry in Wisconsin- as long as they can't procreate.

And they prohibit first cousins who are not able to procreate from marrying.

The same could apply to siblings- but States- all States prohibit all Siblings from marrying- fertile or not?

Why?

i have no knowledge as to why Wisconsin allowed cousin, but not sibling except they might have had a compelling state interest in it. I simply do not know.

And the compelling State interest in that case would not be procreation then.

IF the compelling argument to deny marriage to siblings was only procreation- then Wisconsin would have allowed siblings to marry- IF they were sterile just as First Cousins can marry.

Therefore- while procreation is one of the compelling arguments- it is not the only compelling arguments.

I found this while researching the question. Appears this attorney(?) actually thinks that the lifting of same sex marriage law actually has made sibling marriage legal in 5 states.

Here's the link

Full Marriage Equality From a Lawyer

Yeah- that lawyer filed that brief with the 9th Circuit of Appeals- which ignored it.

Apparently the 9th Circuit of Appeals was not impressed by his legal acumen- why should I be?

He might end up correct. The court ignoring a brief is nothing new.

 

[Pop23]

God you are loony, eliminating procreation from those who could not marry does nothing. Now, how do you stop them from marrying now?

Before you could ban them, now you can't.

And, how many times have I posted that the cousins had to be sterile? Dozens of time maybe?

As you have said- your opposition to sibling marriage is for procreation.

Except you are also opposed to sibling marriage if they cannot procreate.

Meaning you must have some other reason to be against sibling marriage other than procreation.

Dood, wrap this around your head, if one is legalized, you can't prohibit the other. Fertility does not matter

I need zero other reason.

Sure can- first cousins can marry in Wisconsin- as long as they can't procreate.

And they prohibit first cousins who are not able to procreate from marrying.

The same could apply to siblings- but States- all States prohibit all Siblings from marrying- fertile or not?

Why?

Now, INCLUSSION of same sex makes the requirement unworkable. Same sex cousins would have fewer restrictions than straight, so you now have the conflict with equal protection, next step, same sex sibling

No- again- you keep saying that but it doesn't make it so.

Same sex cousins and opposite sex cousins - the same law applies.

Massachusetts courts ruled that same gender couples could get married 11 years ago- still no sibling marriages- because your argument has no legs.

Please tell me why a same sex couple would be compelled to prove sterility?

 

[Pop23]

Dood, wrap this around your head, if one is legalized, you can't prohibit the other. Fertility does not matter

I need zero other reason.

Sure can- first cousins can marry in Wisconsin- as long as they can't procreate.

And they prohibit first cousins who are not able to procreate from marrying.

The same could apply to siblings- but States- all States prohibit all Siblings from marrying- fertile or not?

Why?

i have no knowledge as to why Wisconsin allowed cousin, but not sibling except they might have had a compelling state interest in it. I simply do not know.

And the compelling State interest in that case would not be procreation then.

IF the compelling argument to deny marriage to siblings was only procreation- then Wisconsin would have allowed siblings to marry- IF they were sterile just as First Cousins can marry.

Therefore- while procreation is one of the compelling arguments- it is not the only compelling arguments.

I found this while researching the question. Appears this attorney(?) actually thinks that the lifting of same sex marriage law actually has made sibling marriage legal in 5 states.

Here's the link

Full Marriage Equality From a Lawyer

Yeah- that lawyer filed that brief with the 9th Circuit of Appeals- which ignored it.

Apparently the 9th Circuit of Appeals was not impressed by his legal acumen- why should I be?

Are you a member of the bar?

 

[Syriusly]

Sure can- first cousins can marry in Wisconsin- as long as they can't procreate.

And they prohibit first cousins who are not able to procreate from marrying.

The same could apply to siblings- but States- all States prohibit all Siblings from marrying- fertile or not?

Why?

i have no knowledge as to why Wisconsin allowed cousin, but not sibling except they might have had a compelling state interest in it. I simply do not know.

And the compelling State interest in that case would not be procreation then.

IF the compelling argument to deny marriage to siblings was only procreation- then Wisconsin would have allowed siblings to marry- IF they were sterile just as First Cousins can marry.

Therefore- while procreation is one of the compelling arguments- it is not the only compelling arguments.

I found this while researching the question. Appears this attorney(?) actually thinks that the lifting of same sex marriage law actually has made sibling marriage legal in 5 states.

Here's the link

Full Marriage Equality From a Lawyer

Yeah- that lawyer filed that brief with the 9th Circuit of Appeals- which ignored it.

Apparently the 9th Circuit of Appeals was not impressed by his legal acumen- why should I be?

He might end up correct. The court ignoring a brief is nothing new.

He isn't right so far. He claimed that such marriages were already legal in 2014 in multiple states- yet still no such legal marriages.

Hey its even possible you might be correct one day.

Anything is possible.

 

[Syriusly]

As you have said- your opposition to sibling marriage is for procreation.

Except you are also opposed to sibling marriage if they cannot procreate.

Meaning you must have some other reason to be against sibling marriage other than procreation.

Dood, wrap this around your head, if one is legalized, you can't prohibit the other. Fertility does not matter

I need zero other reason.

Sure can- first cousins can marry in Wisconsin- as long as they can't procreate.

And they prohibit first cousins who are not able to procreate from marrying.

The same could apply to siblings- but States- all States prohibit all Siblings from marrying- fertile or not?

Why?

Now, INCLUSSION of same sex makes the requirement unworkable. Same sex cousins would have fewer restrictions than straight, so you now have the conflict with equal protection, next step, same sex sibling

No- again- you keep saying that but it doesn't make it so.

Same sex cousins and opposite sex cousins - the same law applies.

Massachusetts courts ruled that same gender couples could get married 11 years ago- still no sibling marriages- because your argument has no legs.

Please tell me why a same sex couple would be compelled to prove sterility?

Tell you why a same sex couple would have to follow the law?

What part about the law can't you understand?