Killing Homosexual Marriage

[TheProgressivePatriot]

There is nothing wrong with legal homo marriage as long as it's between a homo man and a lesbian. That scenario can procreate so the protection of legal marriage is valid.

There is nothing wrong with legal marriage between two men or between 2 women. Marriage doesn't require procreation- the intent to procreate- or even the ability to procreate.

The only thing wrong is the attempt by homophobes to discriminate against homosexuals.

Wow, so siblings should be allowed to marry as long as they are of the same sex?

Why do you believe siblings should be allowed to marry?

What I believe is that a homosexual couple, when it comes to marriage , should be treated legally exactly the same as my wife and I were treated.

Why do you think that homosexual couples should be discriminated against, and not treated equally?

I do not think they should dimwit, give me the compelling state interest in denying the right to same sex heterosexual sibling from entering into a marriage.

No one is saying that there is a compelling reason to not allow siblings to marry-dimwit. If you want to marry your brother, or your mother, or your lawn mower, petition the court for permission. It would then be up to the state to defend their prohibition of such things. They may or may not prevail. It's a separate issue . Next stupid question?

 

[Nosmo King]

There is nothing wrong with legal homo marriage as long as it's between a homo man and a lesbian. That scenario can procreate so the protection of legal marriage is valid.

Is the marriage of two elderly people invalid? Is procreation a requirement of marriage? Your argument falls on its face.

You just love bringing up the elderly and disabled.

Tell me exactly how many same sex couples can not procreate within their unions because of reproductive disabilities or advanced age?

Here's a clue, 0% and still not a single child ever born by same sex coupling.

True Story

You are presuming there is a legal obligation on the married couple to procreate. Where is this a law?

No, you did.

You are the one citing procreation here! If it's so important, is it a requirement, or just a lame Conservative straw man argument against same sex marriage?

 

[Pop23]

There is nothing wrong with legal homo marriage as long as it's between a homo man and a lesbian. That scenario can procreate so the protection of legal marriage is valid.

There is nothing wrong with legal marriage between two men or between 2 women. Marriage doesn't require procreation- the intent to procreate- or even the ability to procreate.

The only thing wrong is the attempt by homophobes to discriminate against homosexuals.

Wow, so siblings should be allowed to marry as long as they are of the same sex?

Why do you believe siblings should be allowed to marry?

What I believe is that a homosexual couple, when it comes to marriage , should be treated legally exactly the same as my wife and I were treated.

Why do you think that homosexual couples should be discriminated against, and not treated equally?

I do not think they should dimwit, give me the compelling state interest in denying the right to same sex heterosexual sibling from entering into a marriage.

No one is saying that there is a compelling reason to not allow siblings to marry-dimwit. If you want to marry your brother, or your mother, or your lawn mower, petition the court for permission. It would then be up to the state to defend their prohibition of such things. They may or may not prevail. It's a separate issue . Next stupid question?

Thanks, so you agree that the recent same sex marriage ruling opens the door to same sex sibling marriage.

Since marriage is no longer a union of one man to one woman, the remaining qualifications are, at best arbitrary. This should cause pause to state legislatures, would you not agree, or are you hung up on the tradition?

 

[Pop23]

There is nothing wrong with legal homo marriage as long as it's between a homo man and a lesbian. That scenario can procreate so the protection of legal marriage is valid.

Is the marriage of two elderly people invalid? Is procreation a requirement of marriage? Your argument falls on its face.

You just love bringing up the elderly and disabled.

Tell me exactly how many same sex couples can not procreate within their unions because of reproductive disabilities or advanced age?

Here's a clue, 0% and still not a single child ever born by same sex coupling.

True Story

You are presuming there is a legal obligation on the married couple to procreate. Where is this a law?

No, you did.

You are the one citing procreation here! If it's so important, is it a requirement, or just a lame Conservative straw man argument against same sex marriage?

I think I've pointed out on numinous occations that sex is not a requirement in the marriage law so what the hell are you talking about?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

There is nothing wrong with legal marriage between two men or between 2 women. Marriage doesn't require procreation- the intent to procreate- or even the ability to procreate.

The only thing wrong is the attempt by homophobes to discriminate against homosexuals.

Wow, so siblings should be allowed to marry as long as they are of the same sex?

Why do you believe siblings should be allowed to marry?

What I believe is that a homosexual couple, when it comes to marriage , should be treated legally exactly the same as my wife and I were treated.

Why do you think that homosexual couples should be discriminated against, and not treated equally?

I do not think they should dimwit, give me the compelling state interest in denying the right to same sex heterosexual sibling from entering into a marriage.

No one is saying that there is a compelling reason to not allow siblings to marry-dimwit. If you want to marry your brother, or your mother, or your lawn mower, petition the court for permission. It would then be up to the state to defend their prohibition of such things. They may or may not prevail. It's a separate issue . Next stupid question?

Thanks, so you agree that the recent same sex marriage ruling opens the door to same sex sibling marriage.

Since marriage is no longer a union of one man to one woman, the remaining qualifications are, at best arbitrary. This should cause pause to state legislatures, would you not agree, or are you hung up on the tradition?

Horseshit! I said no such thing. The Obergefell ruling SPECIFICALLY states that same sex couples are granted the same rights-and only the same rights-as opposite sex couples. It does not negate laws against incest or anything else. To say it does is just a dishonest red herring and slippery slope logical fallacy. But, I understand why you have to resort to such low life tactics, since you have nothing else.

 

[Nosmo King]

Is the marriage of two elderly people invalid? Is procreation a requirement of marriage? Your argument falls on its face.

You just love bringing up the elderly and disabled.

Tell me exactly how many same sex couples can not procreate within their unions because of reproductive disabilities or advanced age?

Here's a clue, 0% and still not a single child ever born by same sex coupling.

True Story

You are presuming there is a legal obligation on the married couple to procreate. Where is this a law?

No, you did.

You are the one citing procreation here! If it's so important, is it a requirement, or just a lame Conservative straw man argument against same sex marriage?

I think I've pointed out on numinous occations that sex is not a requirement in the marriage law so what the hell are you talking about?

What is this all about then? :

There is nothing wrong with legal homo marriage as long as it's between a homo man and a lesbian. That scenario can procreate so the protection of legal marriage is valid.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You just love bringing up the elderly and disabled.

Tell me exactly how many same sex couples can not procreate within their unions because of reproductive disabilities or advanced age?

Here's a clue, 0% and still not a single child ever born by same sex coupling.

True Story

You are presuming there is a legal obligation on the married couple to procreate. Where is this a law?

No, you did.

You are the one citing procreation here! If it's so important, is it a requirement, or just a lame Conservative straw man argument against same sex marriage?

I think I've pointed out on numinous occations that sex is not a requirement in the marriage law so what the hell are you talking about?

What is this all about then? :

There is nothing wrong with legal homo marriage as long as it's between a homo man and a lesbian. That scenario can procreate so the protection of legal marriage is valid.

The ability to create members of the next generation is an implied purpose to the institution of marriage, and thus why fagot marriage is not a real marriage in the traditional sense, and that is never going to change no matter how many judges kiss the ass of the Gay Mafia.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You are presuming there is a legal obligation on the married couple to procreate. Where is this a law?

No, you did.

You are the one citing procreation here! If it's so important, is it a requirement, or just a lame Conservative straw man argument against same sex marriage?

I think I've pointed out on numinous occations that sex is not a requirement in the marriage law so what the hell are you talking about?

What is this all about then? :

There is nothing wrong with legal homo marriage as long as it's between a homo man and a lesbian. That scenario can procreate so the protection of legal marriage is valid.

The ability to create members of the next generation is an implied purpose to the institution of marriage, and thus why fagot marriage is not a real marriage in the traditional sense, and that is never going to change no matter how many judges kiss the ass of the Gay Mafia.

So ya think that we are going to become an endangered species because of same sex marriage? Let's take a moment to bask in the stupidity of that. Ya think that if gay people were not allowed to marry someone of the same sex, that they would just marry someone of the opposite sex and have lots of babies? Common bubba, you are really reaching with that one.

 

[Pop23]

Wow, so siblings should be allowed to marry as long as they are of the same sex?

Why do you believe siblings should be allowed to marry?

What I believe is that a homosexual couple, when it comes to marriage , should be treated legally exactly the same as my wife and I were treated.

Why do you think that homosexual couples should be discriminated against, and not treated equally?

I do not think they should dimwit, give me the compelling state interest in denying the right to same sex heterosexual sibling from entering into a marriage.

No one is saying that there is a compelling reason to not allow siblings to marry-dimwit. If you want to marry your brother, or your mother, or your lawn mower, petition the court for permission. It would then be up to the state to defend their prohibition of such things. They may or may not prevail. It's a separate issue . Next stupid question?

Thanks, so you agree that the recent same sex marriage ruling opens the door to same sex sibling marriage.

Since marriage is no longer a union of one man to one woman, the remaining qualifications are, at best arbitrary. This should cause pause to state legislatures, would you not agree, or are you hung up on the tradition?

Horseshit! I said no such thing. The Obergefell ruling SPECIFICALLY states that same sex couples are granted the same rights-and only the same rights-as opposite sex couples. It does not negate laws against incest or anything else. To say it does is just a dishonest red herring and slippery slope logical fallacy. But, I understand why you have to resort to such low life tactics, since you have nothing else.

If true, and not horseshit as you just said it was, you obviously can state a compelling state reason to deny two heterosexual sisters the rights and benefits to a marriage license.

I await your answer.

 

[Pop23]

You just love bringing up the elderly and disabled.

Tell me exactly how many same sex couples can not procreate within their unions because of reproductive disabilities or advanced age?

Here's a clue, 0% and still not a single child ever born by same sex coupling.

True Story

You are presuming there is a legal obligation on the married couple to procreate. Where is this a law?

No, you did.

You are the one citing procreation here! If it's so important, is it a requirement, or just a lame Conservative straw man argument against same sex marriage?

I think I've pointed out on numinous occations that sex is not a requirement in the marriage law so what the hell are you talking about?

What is this all about then? :

There is nothing wrong with legal homo marriage as long as it's between a homo man and a lesbian. That scenario can procreate so the protection of legal marriage is valid.

Yet there remains no requirement that they must have sex to marry.

Are you trying to make a point, is so, please do so.

 

[Pop23]

You are presuming there is a legal obligation on the married couple to procreate. Where is this a law?

No, you did.

You are the one citing procreation here! If it's so important, is it a requirement, or just a lame Conservative straw man argument against same sex marriage?

I think I've pointed out on numinous occations that sex is not a requirement in the marriage law so what the hell are you talking about?

What is this all about then? :

There is nothing wrong with legal homo marriage as long as it's between a homo man and a lesbian. That scenario can procreate so the protection of legal marriage is valid.

The ability to create members of the next generation is an implied purpose to the institution of marriage, and thus why fagot marriage is not a real marriage in the traditional sense, and that is never going to change no matter how many judges kiss the ass of the Gay Mafia.

There really is no need to track bloodlines in homosexual marriage since their unioun cannot produce offspring. But I digress

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Why do you believe siblings should be allowed to marry?

What I believe is that a homosexual couple, when it comes to marriage , should be treated legally exactly the same as my wife and I were treated.

Why do you think that homosexual couples should be discriminated against, and not treated equally?

I do not think they should dimwit, give me the compelling state interest in denying the right to same sex heterosexual sibling from entering into a marriage.

No one is saying that there is a compelling reason to not allow siblings to marry-dimwit. If you want to marry your brother, or your mother, or your lawn mower, petition the court for permission. It would then be up to the state to defend their prohibition of such things. They may or may not prevail. It's a separate issue . Next stupid question?

Thanks, so you agree that the recent same sex marriage ruling opens the door to same sex sibling marriage.

Since marriage is no longer a union of one man to one woman, the remaining qualifications are, at best arbitrary. This should cause pause to state legislatures, would you not agree, or are you hung up on the tradition?

Horseshit! I said no such thing. The Obergefell ruling SPECIFICALLY states that same sex couples are granted the same rights-and only the same rights-as opposite sex couples. It does not negate laws against incest or anything else. To say it does is just a dishonest red herring and slippery slope logical fallacy. But, I understand why you have to resort to such low life tactics, since you have nothing else.

If true, and not bullshit as you just said it was, you obviously can state a compelling state reason to deny two heterosexual sisters the rights and benefits to a marriage license.

I await your answer.

Obviously you don't understand things very well. It would be up to the state to come up with a reason why two sisters could not marry, if in fact they petitioned the court to do so. I have no interest in , or obligation to litigate that issue. If you think that Obergefell, open some door to other variations on marriage, take your mother down to the court house and try to get a marriage license with her. Then come back here and tell me what they said.

 

[Pop23]

Wow, so siblings should be allowed to marry as long as they are of the same sex?

Why do you believe siblings should be allowed to marry?

What I believe is that a homosexual couple, when it comes to marriage , should be treated legally exactly the same as my wife and I were treated.

Why do you think that homosexual couples should be discriminated against, and not treated equally?

I do not think they should dimwit, give me the compelling state interest in denying the right to same sex heterosexual sibling from entering into a marriage.

No one is saying that there is a compelling reason to not allow siblings to marry-dimwit. If you want to marry your brother, or your mother, or your lawn mower, petition the court for permission. It would then be up to the state to defend their prohibition of such things. They may or may not prevail. It's a separate issue . Next stupid question?

Thanks, so you agree that the recent same sex marriage ruling opens the door to same sex sibling marriage.

Since marriage is no longer a union of one man to one woman, the remaining qualifications are, at best arbitrary. This should cause pause to state legislatures, would you not agree, or are you hung up on the tradition?

Horseshit! I said no such thing. The Obergefell ruling SPECIFICALLY states that same sex couples are granted the same rights-and only the same rights-as opposite sex couples. It does not negate laws against incest or anything else. To say it does is just a dishonest red herring and slippery slope logical fallacy. But, I understand why you have to resort to such low life tactics, since you have nothing else.

Oh, and incest is an act, since there is no requirement that a married couple must have sex, then you and the law would make a presumption without probable cause.

 

[Nosmo King]

You are presuming there is a legal obligation on the married couple to procreate. Where is this a law?

No, you did.

You are the one citing procreation here! If it's so important, is it a requirement, or just a lame Conservative straw man argument against same sex marriage?

I think I've pointed out on numinous occations that sex is not a requirement in the marriage law so what the hell are you talking about?

What is this all about then? :

There is nothing wrong with legal homo marriage as long as it's between a homo man and a lesbian. That scenario can procreate so the protection of legal marriage is valid.

The ability to create members of the next generation is an implied purpose to the institution of marriage, and thus why fagot marriage is not a real marriage in the traditional sense, and that is never going to change no matter how many judges kiss the ass of the Gay Mafia.

So, a marriage that produces no children is not a real marriage?

What do you mean by "real marriage"? Are there legal implications or is this your own judgment and opinion? How do marriages that do not conform to your personal interpretation of "real marriages" effect you personally? What harm comes from a marriage that fails to meet your arbitrary threshold of "real marriage"?

 

[Pop23]

I do not think they should dimwit, give me the compelling state interest in denying the right to same sex heterosexual sibling from entering into a marriage.

No one is saying that there is a compelling reason to not allow siblings to marry-dimwit. If you want to marry your brother, or your mother, or your lawn mower, petition the court for permission. It would then be up to the state to defend their prohibition of such things. They may or may not prevail. It's a separate issue . Next stupid question?

Thanks, so you agree that the recent same sex marriage ruling opens the door to same sex sibling marriage.

Since marriage is no longer a union of one man to one woman, the remaining qualifications are, at best arbitrary. This should cause pause to state legislatures, would you not agree, or are you hung up on the tradition?

Horseshit! I said no such thing. The Obergefell ruling SPECIFICALLY states that same sex couples are granted the same rights-and only the same rights-as opposite sex couples. It does not negate laws against incest or anything else. To say it does is just a dishonest red herring and slippery slope logical fallacy. But, I understand why you have to resort to such low life tactics, since you have nothing else.

If true, and not bullshit as you just said it was, you obviously can state a compelling state reason to deny two heterosexual sisters the rights and benefits to a marriage license.

I await your answer.

Obviously you don't understand things very well. It would be up to the state to come up with a reason why two sisters could not marry, if in fact they petitioned the court to do so. I have no interest in , or obligation to litigate that issue. If you think that Obergefell, open some door to other variations on marriage, take your mother down to the court house and try to get a marriage license with her. Then come back here and tell me what they said.

You do understand that laws do change without court challenge right? States have every right to take a look at court rulings and create just law.

Since the current law excluded the need for the couple be of opposite genders, then the rest of the requirements are arbitrary. They have every right, and actually an obligation to the citizens, to rectify this to insure this civil right is afforded all.

Or are you denying this is a civil right?

Wow, that would be a complete disaster for your side, wouldn't it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So, a marriage that produces no children is not a real marriage?

What do you mean by "real marriage"? Are there legal implications or is this your own judgment and opinion? How do marriages that do not conform to your personal interpretation of "real marriages" effect you personally? What harm comes from a marriage that fails to meet your arbitrary threshold of "real marriage"?

Historically a marriage is not complete until it is consummated, that is intercourse with the possibility of bearing children. So the church has long given annulments to people if their spouse was sterile or simply refused to conceive children.

Is it really that hard for you to look this shit up for yourself?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No one is saying that there is a compelling reason to not allow siblings to marry-dimwit. If you want to marry your brother, or your mother, or your lawn mower, petition the court for permission. It would then be up to the state to defend their prohibition of such things. They may or may not prevail. It's a separate issue . Next stupid question?

Thanks, so you agree that the recent same sex marriage ruling opens the door to same sex sibling marriage.

Since marriage is no longer a union of one man to one woman, the remaining qualifications are, at best arbitrary. This should cause pause to state legislatures, would you not agree, or are you hung up on the tradition?

Horseshit! I said no such thing. The Obergefell ruling SPECIFICALLY states that same sex couples are granted the same rights-and only the same rights-as opposite sex couples. It does not negate laws against incest or anything else. To say it does is just a dishonest red herring and slippery slope logical fallacy. But, I understand why you have to resort to such low life tactics, since you have nothing else.

If true, and not bullshit as you just said it was, you obviously can state a compelling state reason to deny two heterosexual sisters the rights and benefits to a marriage license.

I await your answer.

Obviously you don't understand things very well. It would be up to the state to come up with a reason why two sisters could not marry, if in fact they petitioned the court to do so. I have no interest in , or obligation to litigate that issue. If you think that Obergefell, open some door to other variations on marriage, take your mother down to the court house and try to get a marriage license with her. Then come back here and tell me what they said.

You do understand that laws do change without court challenge right? States have every right to take a look at court rulings and create just law.

Since the current law excluded the need for the couple be of opposite genders, then the rest of the requirements are arbitrary. They have every right, and actually an obligation to the citizens, to rectify this to insure this civil right is afforded all.

Or are you denying this is a civil right?

Wow, that would be a complete disaster for your side, wouldn't it.

Of course I know that laws can be changed in other ways. You could also ask your assemblyman or senator to introduce legislation to allow you to marry your mother, or your dog, or both. But all of this other stuff carries with it different issues and consequences for society and each must be assessed on their own merits.

The question of whether sibling marriage can be seen as a civil rights issue is an open one. Civil rights are violated when one group is treated different and suffers as the result of capricious and arbitrary discrimination for no purpose other than to disparage and marginalize them. Gay have proven that was exactly what was happening to them. You and your mother, or those sisters would have to do the same thing. Good like bubba.

Aren't you getting tired of this? You are not proving your slippery slope nonsense at all. Not even close. Same sex marriage is here to stay. End of story

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

There is nothing wrong with legal homo marriage as long as it's between a homo man and a lesbian. That scenario can procreate so the protection of legal marriage is valid.

There is nothing wrong with legal marriage between two men or between 2 women. Marriage doesn't require procreation- the intent to procreate- or even the ability to procreate.

The only thing wrong is the attempt by homophobes to discriminate against homosexuals.

Wow, so siblings should be allowed to marry as long as they are of the same sex?

Why do you believe siblings should be allowed to marry?

What I believe is that a homosexual couple, when it comes to marriage , should be treated legally exactly the same as my wife and I were treated.

Why do you think that homosexual couples should be discriminated against, and not treated equally?

I do not think they should dimwit, give me the compelling state interest in denying the right to same sex heterosexual sibling from entering into a marriage.

No one is saying that there is a compelling reason to not allow siblings to marry-dimwit. If you want to marry your brother, or your mother, or your lawn mower, petition the court for permission. It would then be up to the state to defend their prohibition of such things. They may or may not prevail. It's a separate issue . Next stupid question?

But there are physiological reasons to deny marrying anything other than a non-sibling hetero partner. Procreation for anything beyond hetero and birth defects among siblings.
Next ridiculous question that the originators of marriage didn't think would need to asked...

 

[Montrovant]

The State isn't going to have any kind of marriages, the State doesn't need to get married. But thanks for confirming this arrangement doesn't effect you, I was concerned about that. Since the Federal government doesn't sanction marriage I'm not too worried about what they recognize.

No that's not what the bill did.

The bill didn't eliminate Civil Marriage in Alabama, I provided a link that showed that, ignoring it doesn't change reality.

Alabama was still going to have Civil Marriage, the only thing that was changing was changing it from the "license" issued by the state to a "form" filed with the government. At th


At end of the day Civil Marriage was still there, it would still be recognized across state lines, and it would still be valid for Federal purposes.

And yes, the recognition of Civil Marriage is very important to the men and women of the military since (Of which as a retiree I'm one) such recognition means their spouses get on the base, have access to the Commissary, have access to military medical facilities, spouse co-location for PCS moves, etc. Let alone all the other aspects of Federal recognition.

Here is a link to the proposed legislation -->> http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/alison/searchableinstruments/2015SS/bills/SB21.htm

Marriage still existed and functioned the same, the difference was how marriage was entered into.

>>>>

I've never said a thing about getting rid of civil marriages. You can link the legislation and give me your spin on it all day long, the state was no longer going to license or sanction marriage. When you say "Alabama would still have marriages" what the hell does that mean? The State of Alabama doesn't have marriages, states do not get married. Will marriages still happen within the state? Sure... no one ever suggested we're going to try society without civil marriage. The issue is state recognition of marriage through a licensing process and that was going to end and it will end. This has nothing to do with recognizing marriage licenses issued in other states, that has also been settled by SCOTUS and is not in question.

But thank you again for confirming that this doesn't bother you and isn't a problem for you. It's important that you remain content as you watch this idea spread across the country in every state. Just keep telling yourself that it doesn't harm your gay marriage for the state to not sanction it.

As for your problems in the military, that is not a concern of the State of Alabama or any other state. If some other entity requires a marriage license issued from Alabama they're going to be shit outta luck. If you feel the need to federalize gay marriage you need to get cracking on a new Constitutional amendment because that's the only way this is going to happen. As it stands, states retain the right to license and sanction marriage... or to NOT license and sanction marriage.

So if you aren't advocating getting rid of civil marriages, what exactly are you saying? You've said something about states no longer sanctioning marriage.....but you've had multiple posters telling you that the sited Alabama law would not get rid of state-sanctioned marriage, it would merely change the way people entered into such a union.

It certainly sounded like you were saying states would get out of marriages altogether, but now you are saying civil marriage will remain? What does it matter if states issue a marriage license or if couples file a form?

 

[Pop23]

Thanks, so you agree that the recent same sex marriage ruling opens the door to same sex sibling marriage.

Since marriage is no longer a union of one man to one woman, the remaining qualifications are, at best arbitrary. This should cause pause to state legislatures, would you not agree, or are you hung up on the tradition?

Horseshit! I said no such thing. The Obergefell ruling SPECIFICALLY states that same sex couples are granted the same rights-and only the same rights-as opposite sex couples. It does not negate laws against incest or anything else. To say it does is just a dishonest red herring and slippery slope logical fallacy. But, I understand why you have to resort to such low life tactics, since you have nothing else.

If true, and not bullshit as you just said it was, you obviously can state a compelling state reason to deny two heterosexual sisters the rights and benefits to a marriage license.

I await your answer.

Obviously you don't understand things very well. It would be up to the state to come up with a reason why two sisters could not marry, if in fact they petitioned the court to do so. I have no interest in , or obligation to litigate that issue. If you think that Obergefell, open some door to other variations on marriage, take your mother down to the court house and try to get a marriage license with her. Then come back here and tell me what they said.

You do understand that laws do change without court challenge right? States have every right to take a look at court rulings and create just law.

Since the current law excluded the need for the couple be of opposite genders, then the rest of the requirements are arbitrary. They have every right, and actually an obligation to the citizens, to rectify this to insure this civil right is afforded all.

Or are you denying this is a civil right?

Wow, that would be a complete disaster for your side, wouldn't it.

Of course I know that laws can be changed in other ways. You could also ask your assemblyman or senator to introduce legislation to allow you to marry your mother, or your dog, or both. But all of this other stuff carries with it different issues and consequences for society and each must be assessed on their own merits.

The question of whether sibling marriage can be seen as a civil rights issue is an open one. Civil rights are violated when one group is treated different and suffers as the result of capricious and arbitrary discrimination for no purpose other than to disparage and marginalize them. Gay have proven that was exactly what was happening to them. You and your mother, or those sisters would have to do the same thing. Good like bubba.

Aren't you getting tired of this? You are not proving your slippery slope nonsense at all. Not even close. Same sex marriage is here to stay. End of story

I've never tired of discussing civil rights.

This is not a slippery slope discussion but I can see why you would like it to be.

Prior to the exclusion of the need for opposite gender requirement in marriage, I had zero argument as the equal protection clause would not have come into play. Excluding siblings, or for that matter, all family members from marriage was indeed constitutional. Now , I don't see the argument that this kind exclusion can meet constitutional muster unless you can find where sexual contact, between the partners is a requirement of marriage. Now you would need the presumption that the partners intended to break the law without any probable cause.

And that my friend is why the OP may indeed be correct that homosexual, and indeed all marriage could cease to exist.