Just 5 days later: Man Applies for Marriage License to Have Two Wives

[Pop23]

Exactly, but incestual relations are STILL illegal. Correct?

A temporary condition.

Be assured The Supreme Court will be asked to fix that before you're old and gray.

And those answers will need to be carefully crafted. It's my belief that the only possible answer is to remove marriage as a governmental issued license.

 

[ChrisL]

A temporary condition.

Be assured The Supreme Court will be asked to fix that before you're old and gray.

Doubtful.

Jeez, you look so much younger!

Very funny. I'm saying that I doubt incestual relations will ever be legalized in this country. And it is silly to suggest that this is the reason why some of you are against gay marriage, because it isn't the real reason. There is something else that you guys just don't want to say for some reason. I'm not an idiot, you know.

 

[Pop23]

You're confused again. Marriage WAS defined between a man and a woman, not to closely related.

That definition was changed.

The "not too closely related" was required to keep bloodlines pure.

Same sex siblings cannot create defective bloodlines, so what is the legal basis to deny them a license?

Are you trying to convince me that you are against gay marriage because you are afraid brothers are going to marry one another? Really?

I posted a link earlier of two gay lovers who found out they were actually brothers. It happens.

But actually, why would you deny the financial benefits of marriage to two heterosexual brothers?

The fairy tale is over, marriage is simply a contract bestowing financial benefits between the partners.

There is no qualification that the partners are to be in love or have a sexual relationship.

There is simply no reason to deny those financial rights to the couples I've described all along.

Incest between close relations is illegal. Your argument is a huge failure. Now, tell me why you object to two gay people getting married please. I'm not going to play this silly game anymore. I want answers!

I object because the INCLUSSION creates a legal paradox without answers that make any sense.

Since incest does not equal gays being married, then you are wrong. Those are two completely different sets of circumstances.

You need to read the findings. This removed the marriage ban on SAME SEX MARRIAGE, not Gay

 

[ChrisL]

Are you trying to convince me that you are against gay marriage because you are afraid brothers are going to marry one another? Really?

I posted a link earlier of two gay lovers who found out they were actually brothers. It happens.

But actually, why would you deny the financial benefits of marriage to two heterosexual brothers?

The fairy tale is over, marriage is simply a contract bestowing financial benefits between the partners.

There is no qualification that the partners are to be in love or have a sexual relationship.

There is simply no reason to deny those financial rights to the couples I've described all along.

Incest between close relations is illegal. Your argument is a huge failure. Now, tell me why you object to two gay people getting married please. I'm not going to play this silly game anymore. I want answers!

I object because the INCLUSSION creates a legal paradox without answers that make any sense.

Since incest does not equal gays being married, then you are wrong. Those are two completely different sets of circumstances.

You need to read the findings. This removed the marriage ban on SAME SEX MARRIAGE, not Gay

 

[ChrisL]

I will check back later for the link. I am quite sure there would be stipulations in there, just as there were against close relatives being married because, in most instances, such relationships are the result of child abuse. I have to get to work now. TTYL!

 

[Pop23]

It's funny how you keep having to fall back on family members marrying. That is not what homosexual marriage is.

It's funny how you keep not wanting to talk about family members marrying. It's funny how you keep trying to disenfranchise Incest-Americans from their newly created loophole in last Friday's Ruling.

You see, when the Court created a new class of people to add to the Constitution, based on "sexually deviant behaviors", they didn't get to pick favorites. Ironically, the same passages they incorrectly cited to justify their amending the Constitution also protect any other deviant sexual behaviors, including Polygamy-Americans.

Oh what a fucking mess King Kennedy brought on his own Court. The topic of incorrect premise "behaviors are the same as static race" is going to be explored this time around in a little more depth.

Like I said before, if one set of behaviors repugnant to the majority can escape the majority's regulation, where does the Court next draw the line? The answer is, IT CAN'T. Once you grant a set of behaviors the majority finds offensive "protection from the majority" you've just set into motion a set of legal conditions whereby the entire American legal system will begin to unravel.

I'm shocked Congressional republicans haven't jumped on this and found the Ruling unconstitutional based on the Court attempting to amend the Constitution without permission of the legislative branch. I mean, they're trying to win people's loyalties in this upcoming election. If they do nothing, they're going to look like part of the problem. I get what they're thinking "if we let this travesty go on, we'll rake in more votes". But their miscalculation is that if they let it go on, it will cost them votes. The people in the middle shift around and aren't fastly loyal. If they sense weakness and passivity in the GOP on this issue, it's not going to "make them mad enough to vote GOP".

The solution is to act aggressively now and then remind voters as October 2016 approaches that if they get another hard left crew in power, they're going to be right back in deviant sex-dictatorship land. Then middle voters will remember. Most of the time people forget easily. That's the old adage. But not on this issue. It's a powerful one and one that is branded into people's minds.

Sorry, in my mind, incest and gay marriage are apples and oranges. Not the same thing at all. For one thing, incest usually begins when a person is still a child, and they are groomed into believing it is normal. It is a terrible CRIME. Two gay men or women who are NOT related do not have anything to do with incest, and there is no valid reason to deny two taxpaying Americans the privilege of marriage when there is no abuse or coercion involved.

Rape and sexual abuse are criminal offenses. Married or not b

You have yet to demonstrate how either apply to a set of heterosexual brothers who wish to marry for only the financial benefit the license provides them?

It is off though, your arguments seem to all be based on.

Tradition

And

Procreation

Both lost before and are destined to lose again

 

[Silhouette]

I will check back later for the link. I am quite sure there would be stipulations in there, just as there were against close relatives being married because, in most instances, such relationships are the result of child abuse. I have to get to work now. TTYL!

Translation: If Chris stays and talk about this much longer, you'll corner her that her objections to incest marriage are as arbitrary as she cited in you about your objections to gay marriage. Toodles! *Whew*! (won't be dodged quite so easily when it makes it back to SCOTUS though)

 

[Pop23]

I will check back later for the link. I am quite sure there would be stipulations in there, just as there were against close relatives being married because, in most instances, such relationships are the result of child abuse. I have to get to work now. TTYL!

Here's the ruling:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Note the usage of the words SAME SEX over and over and over

To exclude heterosexual same sex would show bias and eventually start the whole ugly debate all over again.

 

[Pop23]

I will check back later for the link. I am quite sure there would be stipulations in there, just as there were against close relatives being married because, in most instances, such relationships are the result of child abuse. I have to get to work now. TTYL!

Translation: If Chris stays and talk about this much longer, you'll corner her that her objections to incest marriage are as arbitrary as she cited in you about your objections to gay marriage. Toodles! *Whew*! (won't be dodged quite so easily when it makes it back to SCOTUS though)

Arbitrary is key to this. To deny same sex siblings, without procreation used in denial of hetro siblings would be just that now. Prior it had merit, now none.

Same sex gay couples do not have the ability to procreate, so what legal reasoning is there to deny a license.

Same sex heterosexual couples , the same.

How then do you not extend the same "dignity" to any and all combinations without discrimination?

A legal paradox.

 

[Iceweasel]

Since incest does not equal gays being married, then you are wrong. Those are two completely different sets of circumstances.

Gays getting married is different than straights getting married but we have it now. You have moral objections for related adults so you are simply imposing your version of morality onto others. Exactly what gays argued against.

 

[BullKurtz]

I've claimed for years that putting up billboard pics in major cities of queers having anal sex would have stopped this "equality" horseshit in it's tracks. I suppose the city governments wouldn't have allowed billboards showing the kind of sordid activity they'd approved of by statute. So there's the dilemma....the disgusting behavior can't be shown but is expected to be respected.

 

[mdk]

I've claimed for years that putting up billboard pics in major cities of queers having anal sex would have stopped this "equality" horseshit in it's tracks. I suppose the city governments wouldn't have allowed billboards showing the kind of sordid activity they'd approved of by statute. So there's the dilemma....the disgusting behavior can't be shown but is expected to be respected.

Do you think they would have allowed billboards of heterosexual couples in engaging in anal sex? Of course not. Did this sound intelligent in your head?

 

[BullKurtz]

Do you think they would have allowed billboards of heterosexual couples in engaging in anal sex? Of course not. Did this sound intelligent in your head?

I got no interest in your ninny-ass questions or comments, fruit.

 

[Pop23]

I've claimed for years that putting up billboard pics in major cities of queers having anal sex would have stopped this "equality" horseshit in it's tracks. I suppose the city governments wouldn't have allowed billboards showing the kind of sordid activity they'd approved of by statute. So there's the dilemma....the disgusting behavior can't be shown but is expected to be respected.

It is interesting.

One of the same sex marriage advocates was just arguing that the Supreme Court would never allow polygamy to become legal because of "perception".

Your post is simply the same argument.

It wasn't valid then, it won't be a valid argument when it gets to the USSC later.

Great example BK

 

[mdk]

Do you think they would have allowed billboards of heterosexual couples in engaging in anal sex? Of course not. Did this sound intelligent in your head?

I got no interest in your ninny-ass questions or comments, fruit.

Sorry if I exposed your silliness, Marine.

 

[ChrisL]

Since incest does not equal gays being married, then you are wrong. Those are two completely different sets of circumstances.

Gays getting married is different than straights getting married but we have it now. You have moral objections for related adults so you are simply imposing your version of morality onto others. Exactly what gays argued against.

Well, I find this blog, and this man's reply makes much more sense to me than anything you guys are braying about. This reply was made by a poster named Mark LaBossiere, just to give him his credit.

"Accepting same sex marriage does not entail accepting every form of marriage anymore than accepting different sex marriage requires accepting every form of marriage. It is possible to stop the slippery slope in a principled way. To use an analogy, just because women got the vote in 1920 (in the US) it does not follow that the right to vote must then be extended to babies, goats, or squirrels.

So, for example, we can forbid incestuous marriage by accepting the principle that closely related people should not marry. This would apply to same and different sex couples, so would seem to be a consistent application.

However, people can propose expansions to marriage and each would need to be argued on its own merit.

Also, arguments in favor of a type of marriage can be applied to expanding it in other ways. For example, if someone argues for same-sex marriage by arguing that an adult has the right to marry any other consenting adult, then that could be used to justify incestuous marriage. But, of course, if someone argues for different sex marriage by arguing that an adult has the right to marry any other consenting adult, then that could also be used to justify incestuous marriage. If someone argues that marriage is between a male and a female, then that could be used to argue for child marriages, compelled marriages, and also incestuous marriages-all it would require is that the people involved are a male and a female."

 

[ChrisL]

I will check back later for the link. I am quite sure there would be stipulations in there, just as there were against close relatives being married because, in most instances, such relationships are the result of child abuse. I have to get to work now. TTYL!

Translation: If Chris stays and talk about this much longer, you'll corner her that her objections to incest marriage are as arbitrary as she cited in you about your objections to gay marriage. Toodles! *Whew*! (won't be dodged quite so easily when it makes it back to SCOTUS though)

Um, no, unlike you, I have a job.

 

[ChrisL]

I will check back later for the link. I am quite sure there would be stipulations in there, just as there were against close relatives being married because, in most instances, such relationships are the result of child abuse. I have to get to work now. TTYL!

Translation: If Chris stays and talk about this much longer, you'll corner her that her objections to incest marriage are as arbitrary as she cited in you about your objections to gay marriage. Toodles! *Whew*! (won't be dodged quite so easily when it makes it back to SCOTUS though)

Arbitrary is key to this. To deny same sex siblings, without procreation used in denial of hetro siblings would be just that now. Prior it had merit, now none.

Same sex gay couples do not have the ability to procreate, so what legal reasoning is there to deny a license.

Same sex heterosexual couples , the same.

How then do you not extend the same "dignity" to any and all combinations without discrimination?

A legal paradox.

I refer you to post #296, and also the states can still put limitations on marriage certificates. They just cannot discriminate between same sex and opposite sex. I hope you are beginning to finally understand how wrong you are.

 

[ChrisL]

I've claimed for years that putting up billboard pics in major cities of queers having anal sex would have stopped this "equality" horseshit in it's tracks. I suppose the city governments wouldn't have allowed billboards showing the kind of sordid activity they'd approved of by statute. So there's the dilemma....the disgusting behavior can't be shown but is expected to be respected.

Ridiculous.

 

[ChrisL]

I can't wait to see how much MORE ridiculous you guys can get about this simply because you don't like gay people.