Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Syriusly]

I don't dance with your straw man Pops.

Tell it to Virginia- they are the ones who called your 'sibling marriage' incestuous marriage'

Again- here is Virginia- sounding eerily like you

You sound just as bigoted as the State of Virginia when they argued that bans on mixed race marriages were necessary- here let me quote them sounding just like you:

that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage

You are as bigoted as the State of Virginia was when it argued in support of bans on mixed race marriages

Then simply provide the statue requiring sex be a qualifier to a marriage licence.

In Maryland it appears incest is simply vaginal penetration which is directly in conflict with your and judge Crabby Patties opinions.

Explanation?

You using Maryland to deflect how you sound just like Virginia's racist defenders of bans in mixed race marriages doesn't work with me

I don't dance with your straw man Pops.

Tell it to Virginia- they are the ones who called your 'sibling marriage' incestuous marriage'

Again- here is Virginia- sounding eerily like you

You sound just as bigoted as the State of Virginia when they argued that bans on mixed race marriages were necessary- here let me quote them sounding just like you:

that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage

You are as bigoted as the State of Virginia was when it argued in support of bans on mixed race marriages

Yet I posted at least one state in which makes your argument, and the opinion of Justice Crabby look like the speach of fools.

You are under some very basic wrong assumptions.

First, that sex is a requirement of marriage, yet you can't find a single statute requiring same, and, two.....

Second, that Obergfell legalized gay marriage only. it did not. At its root is the legalization of same sex marriage, and in at least one State, Maryland, incest can only be that of vaginal penetration.

If so, marriages performed in Maryland must be recognized in all 50 States.

And you seem to still be operating under the assumption that the bans on close family members marrying is solely about sex. Does Maryland ban close relation marriages based on incestuous sex?

Pops ignores any arguments that derail his attempts to equate sibling marriage to marriage by same gender couples.

For example- he wants to pretend that the only 'known' reason for laws banning marriage of too closely related persons is sex.

BUT as I have pointed out:

Wisconsin allows first cousins to marry- but only if they prove that they cannot procreate.
Wisconsin does not allow siblilngs to marry, or mothers to marry sons- even if they prove that they cannot procreate.

Clearly the ban on siblings marriage in Wisconsin is not solely based upon sex and procreation- since Wisconsin treats First cousins differently from siblings when it comes to marriage.

But Pop will ignore that along with everything else.

Pops ignores any arguments that derail his attempts to equate sibling marriage to marriage by same gender couples.

For example- he wants to pretend that the only 'known' reason for laws banning marriage of too closely related persons is sex.

BUT as I have pointed out:

Wisconsin allows first cousins to marry- but only if they prove that they cannot procreate.
Wisconsin does not allow siblilngs to marry, or mothers to marry sons- even if they prove that they cannot procreate.

Clearly the ban on siblings marriage in Wisconsin is not solely based upon sex and procreation- since Wisconsin treats First cousins differently from siblings when it comes to marriage.

But Pop will ignore that along with everything else

As he keeps proving with each post.

 

[Montrovant]

You using Maryland to deflect how you sound just like Virginia's racist defenders of bans in mixed race marriages doesn't work with me

I don't dance with your straw man Pops.

Tell it to Virginia- they are the ones who called your 'sibling marriage' incestuous marriage'

Again- here is Virginia- sounding eerily like you

You sound just as bigoted as the State of Virginia when they argued that bans on mixed race marriages were necessary- here let me quote them sounding just like you:

that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage

You are as bigoted as the State of Virginia was when it argued in support of bans on mixed race marriages

Yet I posted at least one state in which makes your argument, and the opinion of Justice Crabby look like the speach of fools.

You are under some very basic wrong assumptions.

First, that sex is a requirement of marriage, yet you can't find a single statute requiring same, and, two.....

Second, that Obergfell legalized gay marriage only. it did not. At its root is the legalization of same sex marriage, and in at least one State, Maryland, incest can only be that of vaginal penetration.

If so, marriages performed in Maryland must be recognized in all 50 States.

And you seem to still be operating under the assumption that the bans on close family members marrying is solely about sex. Does Maryland ban close relation marriages based on incestuous sex?

I operate under no such assumptions.

So, point out what those other reasons that preclude same sex siblings from Maryland marriage with the clear understanding that no contract is legitimate if entered into under duress or coercion.

On at least 3 occasions I've given you possible reasons for preventing close relation marriages, including the disclaimer that the arguments are not as strong for siblings as for parents/grandparents and children.

Still, every argument regarding close relations marrying from you I see seems to be based on the idea that such bans must be invalid because same sex relations cannot have children.

And I've pointed out on a number of occasions that contracts are not legal if entered to under duress or coercion.

Since Maryland statue is that incest is vaginal penetration, and Maryland law does not allow for contracts forced upon the individual (duress or coercion), what is the states compelling interest in denying marriage to family members speaking the financial benefit, right of inheritance and a dignified upbringing of their children?

I'm not sure I get what you're trying to argue. If there is a danger of duress or coercion and that is why a state bans close relatives from marrying, are you saying that doesn't make sense because contracts cannot be entered into under duress or coercion? Other than marriage being somewhat different from other contracts, there's no reason that there can't be overlap or redundancy in the law.

 

[Montrovant]

Then simply provide the statue requiring sex be a qualifier to a marriage licence.

In Maryland it appears incest is simply vaginal penetration which is directly in conflict with your and judge Crabby Patties opinions.

Explanation?

You using Maryland to deflect how you sound just like Virginia's racist defenders of bans in mixed race marriages doesn't work with me

I don't dance with your straw man Pops.

Tell it to Virginia- they are the ones who called your 'sibling marriage' incestuous marriage'

Again- here is Virginia- sounding eerily like you

You sound just as bigoted as the State of Virginia when they argued that bans on mixed race marriages were necessary- here let me quote them sounding just like you:

that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage

You are as bigoted as the State of Virginia was when it argued in support of bans on mixed race marriages

Yet I posted at least one state in which makes your argument, and the opinion of Justice Crabby look like the speach of fools.

You are under some very basic wrong assumptions.

First, that sex is a requirement of marriage, yet you can't find a single statute requiring same, and, two.....

Second, that Obergfell legalized gay marriage only. it did not. At its root is the legalization of same sex marriage, and in at least one State, Maryland, incest can only be that of vaginal penetration.

If so, marriages performed in Maryland must be recognized in all 50 States.

And you seem to still be operating under the assumption that the bans on close family members marrying is solely about sex. Does Maryland ban close relation marriages based on incestuous sex?

Pops ignores any arguments that derail his attempts to equate sibling marriage to marriage by same gender couples.

For example- he wants to pretend that the only 'known' reason for laws banning marriage of too closely related persons is sex.

BUT as I have pointed out:

Wisconsin allows first cousins to marry- but only if they prove that they cannot procreate.
Wisconsin does not allow siblilngs to marry, or mothers to marry sons- even if they prove that they cannot procreate.

Clearly the ban on siblings marriage in Wisconsin is not solely based upon sex and procreation- since Wisconsin treats First cousins differently from siblings when it comes to marriage.

But Pop will ignore that along with everything else.

Prior to Obergfell, marriage was between a men and women. Obergfell removed that as a qualification.

No statute exists that requires sex in marriage.

Incest is a sexual act, yet sex is not a requirement in marriage. Same as entering into a Limited Liabilty corporation.

Your argument as to why, while neither requires sex to be legal state entities, you assume it in one yet not the other?

I know!

You're obviouly a pervert

Do you honestly not see a reason to assume a greater likelihood of sex between parties in a marriage than between members of a LLC?

 

[Syriusly]

Yet I posted at least one state in which makes your argument, and the opinion of Justice Crabby look like the speach of fools.

You are under some very basic wrong assumptions.

First, that sex is a requirement of marriage, yet you can't find a single statute requiring same, and, two.....

Second, that Obergfell legalized gay marriage only. it did not. At its root is the legalization of same sex marriage, and in at least one State, Maryland, incest can only be that of vaginal penetration.

If so, marriages performed in Maryland must be recognized in all 50 States.

And you seem to still be operating under the assumption that the bans on close family members marrying is solely about sex. Does Maryland ban close relation marriages based on incestuous sex?

I operate under no such assumptions.

So, point out what those other reasons that preclude same sex siblings from Maryland marriage with the clear understanding that no contract is legitimate if entered into under duress or coercion.

On at least 3 occasions I've given you possible reasons for preventing close relation marriages, including the disclaimer that the arguments are not as strong for siblings as for parents/grandparents and children.

Still, every argument regarding close relations marrying from you I see seems to be based on the idea that such bans must be invalid because same sex relations cannot have children.

And I've pointed out on a number of occasions that contracts are not legal if entered to under duress or coercion.

Since Maryland statue is that incest is vaginal penetration, and Maryland law does not allow for contracts forced upon the individual (duress or coercion), what is the states compelling interest in denying marriage to family members speaking the financial benefit, right of inheritance and a dignified upbringing of their children?

I'm not sure I get what you're trying to argue. If there is a danger of duress or coercion and that is why a state bans close relatives from marrying, are you saying that doesn't make sense because contracts cannot be entered into under duress or coercion? Other than marriage being somewhat different from other contracts, there's no reason that there can't be overlap or redundancy in the law.

Every rational person doesn't understand what Pops is trying to argue.

 

[Montrovant]

Then simply provide the statue requiring sex be a qualifier to a marriage licence.

In Maryland it appears incest is simply vaginal penetration which is directly in conflict with your and judge Crabby Patties opinions.

Explanation?

You using Maryland to deflect how you sound just like Virginia's racist defenders of bans in mixed race marriages doesn't work with me

I don't dance with your straw man Pops.

Tell it to Virginia- they are the ones who called your 'sibling marriage' incestuous marriage'

Again- here is Virginia- sounding eerily like you

You sound just as bigoted as the State of Virginia when they argued that bans on mixed race marriages were necessary- here let me quote them sounding just like you:

that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage

You are as bigoted as the State of Virginia was when it argued in support of bans on mixed race marriages

Yet I posted at least one state in which makes your argument, and the opinion of Justice Crabby look like the speach of fools.

You are under some very basic wrong assumptions.

First, that sex is a requirement of marriage, yet you can't find a single statute requiring same, and, two.....

Second, that Obergfell legalized gay marriage only. it did not. At its root is the legalization of same sex marriage, and in at least one State, Maryland, incest can only be that of vaginal penetration.

If so, marriages performed in Maryland must be recognized in all 50 States.

And you seem to still be operating under the assumption that the bans on close family members marrying is solely about sex. Does Maryland ban close relation marriages based on incestuous sex?

Pops ignores any arguments that derail his attempts to equate sibling marriage to marriage by same gender couples.

For example- he wants to pretend that the only 'known' reason for laws banning marriage of too closely related persons is sex.

BUT as I have pointed out:

Wisconsin allows first cousins to marry- but only if they prove that they cannot procreate.
Wisconsin does not allow siblilngs to marry, or mothers to marry sons- even if they prove that they cannot procreate.

Clearly the ban on siblings marriage in Wisconsin is not solely based upon sex and procreation- since Wisconsin treats First cousins differently from siblings when it comes to marriage.

But Pop will ignore that along with everything else.

Prior to Obergfell, marriage was between a men and women. Obergfell removed that as a qualification.

No statute exists that requires sex in marriage.

Incest is a sexual act, yet sex is not a requirement in marriage. Same as entering into a Limited Liabilty corporation.

Your argument as to why, while neither requires sex to be legal state entities, you assume it in one yet not the other?

I know!

You're obviouly a pervert

Apparently at least some states allow for divorce on the grounds of 'constructive abandonment' or 'constructive desertion'. In these cases the withholding of sex to a spouse can be considered grounds to dissolve the marriage. Here's a couple of links on the subject :
Divorce & Abandonment Laws in Georgia
Divorce Support - What is constructive desertion?

There are obviously rules and guidelines about what constitutes one of these phrases, including time period (a year of withholding sex seems to be the norm), physical ability to perform, etc.. Still, there seem to be at least some laws and precedents in which sex is considered an integral part of marriage.

I am guessing that at least some of these laws are, if not mutually contradictory, then at least in need of an overhaul.

 

[Pop23]

Yet I posted at least one state in which makes your argument, and the opinion of Justice Crabby look like the speach of fools.

You are under some very basic wrong assumptions.

First, that sex is a requirement of marriage, yet you can't find a single statute requiring same, and, two.....

Second, that Obergfell legalized gay marriage only. it did not. At its root is the legalization of same sex marriage, and in at least one State, Maryland, incest can only be that of vaginal penetration.

If so, marriages performed in Maryland must be recognized in all 50 States.

And you seem to still be operating under the assumption that the bans on close family members marrying is solely about sex. Does Maryland ban close relation marriages based on incestuous sex?

I operate under no such assumptions.

So, point out what those other reasons that preclude same sex siblings from Maryland marriage with the clear understanding that no contract is legitimate if entered into under duress or coercion.

On at least 3 occasions I've given you possible reasons for preventing close relation marriages, including the disclaimer that the arguments are not as strong for siblings as for parents/grandparents and children.

Still, every argument regarding close relations marrying from you I see seems to be based on the idea that such bans must be invalid because same sex relations cannot have children.

And I've pointed out on a number of occasions that contracts are not legal if entered to under duress or coercion.

Since Maryland statue is that incest is vaginal penetration, and Maryland law does not allow for contracts forced upon the individual (duress or coercion), what is the states compelling interest in denying marriage to family members speaking the financial benefit, right of inheritance and a dignified upbringing of their children?

I'm not sure I get what you're trying to argue. If there is a danger of duress or coercion and that is why a state bans close relatives from marrying, are you saying that doesn't make sense because contracts cannot be entered into under duress or coercion? Other than marriage being somewhat different from other contracts, there's no reason that there can't be overlap or redundancy in the law.

It was much different than other contracts prior to Obergfell as there was the requirement that this contract, like no other that I know of be one that included one of each gender.

Now that exclussion is gone, and not replaced with a safeguard against incest. These justices, being knowledgable jurists removed that exclussion knowing full well that sex was not a requirement of marriage.

So it becomes a partnership of two (debatable) in which the state allows the participants to define what that contract is to them.

Since sex is not a requirement, and

1. A contract cannot be entered into for criminal purposes

2. A contract cannot be entered into while under duress or coercion

Tell me what compelling state interest there is for the state to allow any two people, not entering into an illegal contract, to marry.

 

[Syriusly]

You using Maryland to deflect how you sound just like Virginia's racist defenders of bans in mixed race marriages doesn't work with me

I don't dance with your straw man Pops.

Tell it to Virginia- they are the ones who called your 'sibling marriage' incestuous marriage'

Again- here is Virginia- sounding eerily like you

You sound just as bigoted as the State of Virginia when they argued that bans on mixed race marriages were necessary- here let me quote them sounding just like you:

that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage

You are as bigoted as the State of Virginia was when it argued in support of bans on mixed race marriages

Yet I posted at least one state in which makes your argument, and the opinion of Justice Crabby look like the speach of fools.

You are under some very basic wrong assumptions.

First, that sex is a requirement of marriage, yet you can't find a single statute requiring same, and, two.....

Second, that Obergfell legalized gay marriage only. it did not. At its root is the legalization of same sex marriage, and in at least one State, Maryland, incest can only be that of vaginal penetration.

If so, marriages performed in Maryland must be recognized in all 50 States.

And you seem to still be operating under the assumption that the bans on close family members marrying is solely about sex. Does Maryland ban close relation marriages based on incestuous sex?

Pops ignores any arguments that derail his attempts to equate sibling marriage to marriage by same gender couples.

For example- he wants to pretend that the only 'known' reason for laws banning marriage of too closely related persons is sex.

BUT as I have pointed out:

Wisconsin allows first cousins to marry- but only if they prove that they cannot procreate.
Wisconsin does not allow siblilngs to marry, or mothers to marry sons- even if they prove that they cannot procreate.

Clearly the ban on siblings marriage in Wisconsin is not solely based upon sex and procreation- since Wisconsin treats First cousins differently from siblings when it comes to marriage.

But Pop will ignore that along with everything else.

Prior to Obergfell, marriage was between a men and women. Obergfell removed that as a qualification.

No statute exists that requires sex in marriage.

Incest is a sexual act, yet sex is not a requirement in marriage. Same as entering into a Limited Liabilty corporation.

Your argument as to why, while neither requires sex to be legal state entities, you assume it in one yet not the other?

I know!

You're obviouly a pervert

Apparently at least some states allow for divorce on the grounds of 'constructive abandonment' or 'constructive desertion'. In these cases the withholding of sex to a spouse can be considered grounds to dissolve the marriage. Here's a couple of links on the subject :
Divorce & Abandonment Laws in Georgia
Divorce Support - What is constructive desertion?

There are obviously rules and guidelines about what constitutes one of these phrases, including time period (a year of withholding sex seems to be the norm), physical ability to perform, etc.. Still, there seem to be at least some laws and precedents in which sex is considered an integral part of marriage.

I am guessing that at least some of these laws are, if not mutually contradictory, then at least in need of an overhaul.

Pop just wants everyone to dance with his straw man.

Incestuous marriage
Definition
An unlawful marriage between two persons who are closely related either by blood, known as consanguinity, or by marriage, known as affinity.

Incestuous marriage legal definition - Quimbee

 

[Syriusly]

And you seem to still be operating under the assumption that the bans on close family members marrying is solely about sex. Does Maryland ban close relation marriages based on incestuous sex?

I operate under no such assumptions.

So, point out what those other reasons that preclude same sex siblings from Maryland marriage with the clear understanding that no contract is legitimate if entered into under duress or coercion.

On at least 3 occasions I've given you possible reasons for preventing close relation marriages, including the disclaimer that the arguments are not as strong for siblings as for parents/grandparents and children.

Still, every argument regarding close relations marrying from you I see seems to be based on the idea that such bans must be invalid because same sex relations cannot have children.

And I've pointed out on a number of occasions that contracts are not legal if entered to under duress or coercion.

Since Maryland statue is that incest is vaginal penetration, and Maryland law does not allow for contracts forced upon the individual (duress or coercion), what is the states compelling interest in denying marriage to family members speaking the financial benefit, right of inheritance and a dignified upbringing of their children?

I'm not sure I get what you're trying to argue. If there is a danger of duress or coercion and that is why a state bans close relatives from marrying, are you saying that doesn't make sense because contracts cannot be entered into under duress or coercion? Other than marriage being somewhat different from other contracts, there's no reason that there can't be overlap or redundancy in the law.

It was much different than other contracts prior to Obergfell as there was the requirement that this contract, like no other that I know of be one that included one of each gender.

Now that exclussion is gone, and not replaced with a safeguard against incest. These justices, being knowledgable jurists removed that exclussion knowing full well that sex was not a requirement of marriage.

So it becomes a partnership of two (debatable) in which the state allows the participants to define what that contract is to them.

Since sex is not a requirement, and

1. A contract cannot be entered into for criminal purposes

2. A contract cannot be entered into while under duress or coercion

Tell me what compelling state interest there is for the state to allow any two people, not entering into an illegal contract, to marry.

Pop still trying to get someone to dance with his straw man

Tell me- why does Wisconsin allow First cousins to marry but only if they prove that they cannot procreate- but does not allow siblings to marry- regardless of their ability to procreate?

 

[Pop23]

You using Maryland to deflect how you sound just like Virginia's racist defenders of bans in mixed race marriages doesn't work with me

I don't dance with your straw man Pops.

Tell it to Virginia- they are the ones who called your 'sibling marriage' incestuous marriage'

Again- here is Virginia- sounding eerily like you

You sound just as bigoted as the State of Virginia when they argued that bans on mixed race marriages were necessary- here let me quote them sounding just like you:

that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage

You are as bigoted as the State of Virginia was when it argued in support of bans on mixed race marriages

Yet I posted at least one state in which makes your argument, and the opinion of Justice Crabby look like the speach of fools.

You are under some very basic wrong assumptions.

First, that sex is a requirement of marriage, yet you can't find a single statute requiring same, and, two.....

Second, that Obergfell legalized gay marriage only. it did not. At its root is the legalization of same sex marriage, and in at least one State, Maryland, incest can only be that of vaginal penetration.

If so, marriages performed in Maryland must be recognized in all 50 States.

And you seem to still be operating under the assumption that the bans on close family members marrying is solely about sex. Does Maryland ban close relation marriages based on incestuous sex?

Pops ignores any arguments that derail his attempts to equate sibling marriage to marriage by same gender couples.

For example- he wants to pretend that the only 'known' reason for laws banning marriage of too closely related persons is sex.

BUT as I have pointed out:

Wisconsin allows first cousins to marry- but only if they prove that they cannot procreate.
Wisconsin does not allow siblilngs to marry, or mothers to marry sons- even if they prove that they cannot procreate.

Clearly the ban on siblings marriage in Wisconsin is not solely based upon sex and procreation- since Wisconsin treats First cousins differently from siblings when it comes to marriage.

But Pop will ignore that along with everything else.

Prior to Obergfell, marriage was between a men and women. Obergfell removed that as a qualification.

No statute exists that requires sex in marriage.

Incest is a sexual act, yet sex is not a requirement in marriage. Same as entering into a Limited Liabilty corporation.

Your argument as to why, while neither requires sex to be legal state entities, you assume it in one yet not the other?

I know!

You're obviouly a pervert

Apparently at least some states allow for divorce on the grounds of 'constructive abandonment' or 'constructive desertion'. In these cases the withholding of sex to a spouse can be considered grounds to dissolve the marriage. Here's a couple of links on the subject :
Divorce & Abandonment Laws in Georgia
Divorce Support - What is constructive desertion?

There are obviously rules and guidelines about what constitutes one of these phrases, including time period (a year of withholding sex seems to be the norm), physical ability to perform, etc.. Still, there seem to be at least some laws and precedents in which sex is considered an integral part of marriage.

I am guessing that at least some of these laws are, if not mutually contradictory, then at least in need of an overhaul.

So, let me get this straight, you want the state to have the ability to define what satisfactory sex is?

 

[Pop23]

I operate under no such assumptions.

So, point out what those other reasons that preclude same sex siblings from Maryland marriage with the clear understanding that no contract is legitimate if entered into under duress or coercion.

On at least 3 occasions I've given you possible reasons for preventing close relation marriages, including the disclaimer that the arguments are not as strong for siblings as for parents/grandparents and children.

Still, every argument regarding close relations marrying from you I see seems to be based on the idea that such bans must be invalid because same sex relations cannot have children.

And I've pointed out on a number of occasions that contracts are not legal if entered to under duress or coercion.

Since Maryland statue is that incest is vaginal penetration, and Maryland law does not allow for contracts forced upon the individual (duress or coercion), what is the states compelling interest in denying marriage to family members speaking the financial benefit, right of inheritance and a dignified upbringing of their children?

I'm not sure I get what you're trying to argue. If there is a danger of duress or coercion and that is why a state bans close relatives from marrying, are you saying that doesn't make sense because contracts cannot be entered into under duress or coercion? Other than marriage being somewhat different from other contracts, there's no reason that there can't be overlap or redundancy in the law.

It was much different than other contracts prior to Obergfell as there was the requirement that this contract, like no other that I know of be one that included one of each gender.

Now that exclussion is gone, and not replaced with a safeguard against incest. These justices, being knowledgable jurists removed that exclussion knowing full well that sex was not a requirement of marriage.

So it becomes a partnership of two (debatable) in which the state allows the participants to define what that contract is to them.

Since sex is not a requirement, and

1. A contract cannot be entered into for criminal purposes

2. A contract cannot be entered into while under duress or coercion

Tell me what compelling state interest there is for the state to allow any two people, not entering into an illegal contract, to marry.

Pop still trying to get someone to dance with his straw man

Tell me- why does Wisconsin allow First cousins to marry but only if they prove that they cannot procreate- but does not allow siblings to marry- regardless of their ability to procreate?

I don't know, but I'll hazard a guess

Procreation?

 

[Syriusly]

Yet I posted at least one state in which makes your argument, and the opinion of Justice Crabby look like the speach of fools.

You are under some very basic wrong assumptions.

First, that sex is a requirement of marriage, yet you can't find a single statute requiring same, and, two.....

Second, that Obergfell legalized gay marriage only. it did not. At its root is the legalization of same sex marriage, and in at least one State, Maryland, incest can only be that of vaginal penetration.

If so, marriages performed in Maryland must be recognized in all 50 States.

And you seem to still be operating under the assumption that the bans on close family members marrying is solely about sex. Does Maryland ban close relation marriages based on incestuous sex?

Pops ignores any arguments that derail his attempts to equate sibling marriage to marriage by same gender couples.

For example- he wants to pretend that the only 'known' reason for laws banning marriage of too closely related persons is sex.

BUT as I have pointed out:

Wisconsin allows first cousins to marry- but only if they prove that they cannot procreate.
Wisconsin does not allow siblilngs to marry, or mothers to marry sons- even if they prove that they cannot procreate.

Clearly the ban on siblings marriage in Wisconsin is not solely based upon sex and procreation- since Wisconsin treats First cousins differently from siblings when it comes to marriage.

But Pop will ignore that along with everything else.

Prior to Obergfell, marriage was between a men and women. Obergfell removed that as a qualification.

No statute exists that requires sex in marriage.

Incest is a sexual act, yet sex is not a requirement in marriage. Same as entering into a Limited Liabilty corporation.

Your argument as to why, while neither requires sex to be legal state entities, you assume it in one yet not the other?

I know!

You're obviouly a pervert

Apparently at least some states allow for divorce on the grounds of 'constructive abandonment' or 'constructive desertion'. In these cases the withholding of sex to a spouse can be considered grounds to dissolve the marriage. Here's a couple of links on the subject :
Divorce & Abandonment Laws in Georgia
Divorce Support - What is constructive desertion?

There are obviously rules and guidelines about what constitutes one of these phrases, including time period (a year of withholding sex seems to be the norm), physical ability to perform, etc.. Still, there seem to be at least some laws and precedents in which sex is considered an integral part of marriage.

I am guessing that at least some of these laws are, if not mutually contradictory, then at least in need of an overhaul.

So, let me get this straight, you want the state to have the ability to define what satisfactory sex is?

Since he didn't say anything like that in his post- what did he say that made you imagine that?

 

[Pop23]

Yet I posted at least one state in which makes your argument, and the opinion of Justice Crabby look like the speach of fools.

You are under some very basic wrong assumptions.

First, that sex is a requirement of marriage, yet you can't find a single statute requiring same, and, two.....

Second, that Obergfell legalized gay marriage only. it did not. At its root is the legalization of same sex marriage, and in at least one State, Maryland, incest can only be that of vaginal penetration.

If so, marriages performed in Maryland must be recognized in all 50 States.

And you seem to still be operating under the assumption that the bans on close family members marrying is solely about sex. Does Maryland ban close relation marriages based on incestuous sex?

Pops ignores any arguments that derail his attempts to equate sibling marriage to marriage by same gender couples.

For example- he wants to pretend that the only 'known' reason for laws banning marriage of too closely related persons is sex.

BUT as I have pointed out:

Wisconsin allows first cousins to marry- but only if they prove that they cannot procreate.
Wisconsin does not allow siblilngs to marry, or mothers to marry sons- even if they prove that they cannot procreate.

Clearly the ban on siblings marriage in Wisconsin is not solely based upon sex and procreation- since Wisconsin treats First cousins differently from siblings when it comes to marriage.

But Pop will ignore that along with everything else.

Prior to Obergfell, marriage was between a men and women. Obergfell removed that as a qualification.

No statute exists that requires sex in marriage.

Incest is a sexual act, yet sex is not a requirement in marriage. Same as entering into a Limited Liabilty corporation.

Your argument as to why, while neither requires sex to be legal state entities, you assume it in one yet not the other?

I know!

You're obviouly a pervert

Apparently at least some states allow for divorce on the grounds of 'constructive abandonment' or 'constructive desertion'. In these cases the withholding of sex to a spouse can be considered grounds to dissolve the marriage. Here's a couple of links on the subject :
Divorce & Abandonment Laws in Georgia
Divorce Support - What is constructive desertion?

There are obviously rules and guidelines about what constitutes one of these phrases, including time period (a year of withholding sex seems to be the norm), physical ability to perform, etc.. Still, there seem to be at least some laws and precedents in which sex is considered an integral part of marriage.

I am guessing that at least some of these laws are, if not mutually contradictory, then at least in need of an overhaul.

Pop just wants everyone to dance with his straw man.

Incestuous marriage
Definition
An unlawful marriage between two persons who are closely related either by blood, known as consanguinity, or by marriage, known as affinity.

Incestuous marriage legal definition - Quimbee

Ah yes, the bigot responds with a cut and paste and no reasoning.

So, couples could not possibly coexist without sex

 

[Syriusly]

On at least 3 occasions I've given you possible reasons for preventing close relation marriages, including the disclaimer that the arguments are not as strong for siblings as for parents/grandparents and children.

Still, every argument regarding close relations marrying from you I see seems to be based on the idea that such bans must be invalid because same sex relations cannot have children.

And I've pointed out on a number of occasions that contracts are not legal if entered to under duress or coercion.

Since Maryland statue is that incest is vaginal penetration, and Maryland law does not allow for contracts forced upon the individual (duress or coercion), what is the states compelling interest in denying marriage to family members speaking the financial benefit, right of inheritance and a dignified upbringing of their children?

I'm not sure I get what you're trying to argue. If there is a danger of duress or coercion and that is why a state bans close relatives from marrying, are you saying that doesn't make sense because contracts cannot be entered into under duress or coercion? Other than marriage being somewhat different from other contracts, there's no reason that there can't be overlap or redundancy in the law.

It was much different than other contracts prior to Obergfell as there was the requirement that this contract, like no other that I know of be one that included one of each gender.

Now that exclussion is gone, and not replaced with a safeguard against incest. These justices, being knowledgable jurists removed that exclussion knowing full well that sex was not a requirement of marriage.

So it becomes a partnership of two (debatable) in which the state allows the participants to define what that contract is to them.

Since sex is not a requirement, and

1. A contract cannot be entered into for criminal purposes

2. A contract cannot be entered into while under duress or coercion

Tell me what compelling state interest there is for the state to allow any two people, not entering into an illegal contract, to marry.

Pop still trying to get someone to dance with his straw man

Tell me- why does Wisconsin allow First cousins to marry but only if they prove that they cannot procreate- but does not allow siblings to marry- regardless of their ability to procreate?

I don't know, but I'll hazard a guess

Procreation?

Procreation?

Wisconsin doesn't care whether siblings can procreate or not- always illegal.

But they care if First cousins can procreate- they can only marry if they cannot procreate.

So what makes you think 'procreation' is the reason Wisconsin forbids infertile siblings from marrying- but not infertile First cousins?

 

[Syriusly]

And you seem to still be operating under the assumption that the bans on close family members marrying is solely about sex. Does Maryland ban close relation marriages based on incestuous sex?

Pops ignores any arguments that derail his attempts to equate sibling marriage to marriage by same gender couples.

For example- he wants to pretend that the only 'known' reason for laws banning marriage of too closely related persons is sex.

BUT as I have pointed out:

Wisconsin allows first cousins to marry- but only if they prove that they cannot procreate.
Wisconsin does not allow siblilngs to marry, or mothers to marry sons- even if they prove that they cannot procreate.

Clearly the ban on siblings marriage in Wisconsin is not solely based upon sex and procreation- since Wisconsin treats First cousins differently from siblings when it comes to marriage.

But Pop will ignore that along with everything else.

Prior to Obergfell, marriage was between a men and women. Obergfell removed that as a qualification.

No statute exists that requires sex in marriage.

Incest is a sexual act, yet sex is not a requirement in marriage. Same as entering into a Limited Liabilty corporation.

Your argument as to why, while neither requires sex to be legal state entities, you assume it in one yet not the other?

I know!

You're obviouly a pervert

Apparently at least some states allow for divorce on the grounds of 'constructive abandonment' or 'constructive desertion'. In these cases the withholding of sex to a spouse can be considered grounds to dissolve the marriage. Here's a couple of links on the subject :
Divorce & Abandonment Laws in Georgia
Divorce Support - What is constructive desertion?

There are obviously rules and guidelines about what constitutes one of these phrases, including time period (a year of withholding sex seems to be the norm), physical ability to perform, etc.. Still, there seem to be at least some laws and precedents in which sex is considered an integral part of marriage.

I am guessing that at least some of these laws are, if not mutually contradictory, then at least in need of an overhaul.

Pop just wants everyone to dance with his straw man.

Incestuous marriage
Definition
An unlawful marriage between two persons who are closely related either by blood, known as consanguinity, or by marriage, known as affinity.

Incestuous marriage legal definition - Quimbee

Ah yes, the bigot responds with a cut and paste and no reasoning.

So, couples could not possibly coexist without sex

What 'sex'? I- and the definition- do not mention sex- that would be you- quoting you.

Incestuous marriage
Definition
An unlawful marriage between two persons who are closely related either by blood, known as consanguinity, or by marriage, known as affinity.

Incestuous marriage legal definition - Quimbee

 

[Pop23]

Pops ignores any arguments that derail his attempts to equate sibling marriage to marriage by same gender couples.

For example- he wants to pretend that the only 'known' reason for laws banning marriage of too closely related persons is sex.

BUT as I have pointed out:

Wisconsin allows first cousins to marry- but only if they prove that they cannot procreate.
Wisconsin does not allow siblilngs to marry, or mothers to marry sons- even if they prove that they cannot procreate.

Clearly the ban on siblings marriage in Wisconsin is not solely based upon sex and procreation- since Wisconsin treats First cousins differently from siblings when it comes to marriage.

But Pop will ignore that along with everything else.

Prior to Obergfell, marriage was between a men and women. Obergfell removed that as a qualification.

No statute exists that requires sex in marriage.

Incest is a sexual act, yet sex is not a requirement in marriage. Same as entering into a Limited Liabilty corporation.

Your argument as to why, while neither requires sex to be legal state entities, you assume it in one yet not the other?

I know!

You're obviouly a pervert

Apparently at least some states allow for divorce on the grounds of 'constructive abandonment' or 'constructive desertion'. In these cases the withholding of sex to a spouse can be considered grounds to dissolve the marriage. Here's a couple of links on the subject :
Divorce & Abandonment Laws in Georgia
Divorce Support - What is constructive desertion?

There are obviously rules and guidelines about what constitutes one of these phrases, including time period (a year of withholding sex seems to be the norm), physical ability to perform, etc.. Still, there seem to be at least some laws and precedents in which sex is considered an integral part of marriage.

I am guessing that at least some of these laws are, if not mutually contradictory, then at least in need of an overhaul.

Pop just wants everyone to dance with his straw man.

Incestuous marriage
Definition
An unlawful marriage between two persons who are closely related either by blood, known as consanguinity, or by marriage, known as affinity.

Incestuous marriage legal definition - Quimbee

Ah yes, the bigot responds with a cut and paste and no reasoning.

So, couples could not possibly coexist without sex

What 'sex'? I- and the definition- do not mention sex- that would be you- quoting you.

Incestuous marriage
Definition
An unlawful marriage between two persons who are closely related either by blood, known as consanguinity, or by marriage, known as affinity.

Incestuous marriage legal definition - Quimbee

Then no compelling reason to deny.

Thanks space commando whack!

 

[Pop23]

And I've pointed out on a number of occasions that contracts are not legal if entered to under duress or coercion.

Since Maryland statue is that incest is vaginal penetration, and Maryland law does not allow for contracts forced upon the individual (duress or coercion), what is the states compelling interest in denying marriage to family members speaking the financial benefit, right of inheritance and a dignified upbringing of their children?

I'm not sure I get what you're trying to argue. If there is a danger of duress or coercion and that is why a state bans close relatives from marrying, are you saying that doesn't make sense because contracts cannot be entered into under duress or coercion? Other than marriage being somewhat different from other contracts, there's no reason that there can't be overlap or redundancy in the law.

It was much different than other contracts prior to Obergfell as there was the requirement that this contract, like no other that I know of be one that included one of each gender.

Now that exclussion is gone, and not replaced with a safeguard against incest. These justices, being knowledgable jurists removed that exclussion knowing full well that sex was not a requirement of marriage.

So it becomes a partnership of two (debatable) in which the state allows the participants to define what that contract is to them.

Since sex is not a requirement, and

1. A contract cannot be entered into for criminal purposes

2. A contract cannot be entered into while under duress or coercion

Tell me what compelling state interest there is for the state to allow any two people, not entering into an illegal contract, to marry.

Pop still trying to get someone to dance with his straw man

Tell me- why does Wisconsin allow First cousins to marry but only if they prove that they cannot procreate- but does not allow siblings to marry- regardless of their ability to procreate?

I don't know, but I'll hazard a guess

Procreation?

Procreation?

Wisconsin doesn't care whether siblings can procreate or not- always illegal.

But they care if First cousins can procreate- they can only marry if they cannot procreate.

So what makes you think 'procreation' is the reason Wisconsin forbids infertile siblings from marrying- but not infertile First cousins?

There would be no reason since sex is not a requirement to marry.

Only a Perv like you would think two adults would enter into a contract to have sex.

 

[Montrovant]

Yet I posted at least one state in which makes your argument, and the opinion of Justice Crabby look like the speach of fools.

You are under some very basic wrong assumptions.

First, that sex is a requirement of marriage, yet you can't find a single statute requiring same, and, two.....

Second, that Obergfell legalized gay marriage only. it did not. At its root is the legalization of same sex marriage, and in at least one State, Maryland, incest can only be that of vaginal penetration.

If so, marriages performed in Maryland must be recognized in all 50 States.

And you seem to still be operating under the assumption that the bans on close family members marrying is solely about sex. Does Maryland ban close relation marriages based on incestuous sex?

Pops ignores any arguments that derail his attempts to equate sibling marriage to marriage by same gender couples.

For example- he wants to pretend that the only 'known' reason for laws banning marriage of too closely related persons is sex.

BUT as I have pointed out:

Wisconsin allows first cousins to marry- but only if they prove that they cannot procreate.
Wisconsin does not allow siblilngs to marry, or mothers to marry sons- even if they prove that they cannot procreate.

Clearly the ban on siblings marriage in Wisconsin is not solely based upon sex and procreation- since Wisconsin treats First cousins differently from siblings when it comes to marriage.

But Pop will ignore that along with everything else.

Prior to Obergfell, marriage was between a men and women. Obergfell removed that as a qualification.

No statute exists that requires sex in marriage.

Incest is a sexual act, yet sex is not a requirement in marriage. Same as entering into a Limited Liabilty corporation.

Your argument as to why, while neither requires sex to be legal state entities, you assume it in one yet not the other?

I know!

You're obviouly a pervert

Apparently at least some states allow for divorce on the grounds of 'constructive abandonment' or 'constructive desertion'. In these cases the withholding of sex to a spouse can be considered grounds to dissolve the marriage. Here's a couple of links on the subject :
Divorce & Abandonment Laws in Georgia
Divorce Support - What is constructive desertion?

There are obviously rules and guidelines about what constitutes one of these phrases, including time period (a year of withholding sex seems to be the norm), physical ability to perform, etc.. Still, there seem to be at least some laws and precedents in which sex is considered an integral part of marriage.

I am guessing that at least some of these laws are, if not mutually contradictory, then at least in need of an overhaul.

So, let me get this straight, you want the state to have the ability to define what satisfactory sex is?

I neither said nor implied anything of the sort. That has nothing to do with my post.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Prior to Obergfell, marriage was between a men and women. Obergfell removed that as a qualification.

No statute exists that requires sex in marriage.

Incest is a sexual act, yet sex is not a requirement in marriage. Same as entering into a Limited Liabilty corporation.

Your argument as to why, while neither requires sex to be legal state entities, you assume it in one yet not the other?

I know!

You're obviouly a pervert

Apparently at least some states allow for divorce on the grounds of 'constructive abandonment' or 'constructive desertion'. In these cases the withholding of sex to a spouse can be considered grounds to dissolve the marriage. Here's a couple of links on the subject :
Divorce & Abandonment Laws in Georgia
Divorce Support - What is constructive desertion?

There are obviously rules and guidelines about what constitutes one of these phrases, including time period (a year of withholding sex seems to be the norm), physical ability to perform, etc.. Still, there seem to be at least some laws and precedents in which sex is considered an integral part of marriage.

I am guessing that at least some of these laws are, if not mutually contradictory, then at least in need of an overhaul.

Pop just wants everyone to dance with his straw man.

Incestuous marriage
Definition
An unlawful marriage between two persons who are closely related either by blood, known as consanguinity, or by marriage, known as affinity.

Incestuous marriage legal definition - Quimbee

Ah yes, the bigot responds with a cut and paste and no reasoning.

So, couples could not possibly coexist without sex

What 'sex'? I- and the definition- do not mention sex- that would be you- quoting you.

Incestuous marriage
Definition
An unlawful marriage between two persons who are closely related either by blood, known as consanguinity, or by marriage, known as affinity.

Incestuous marriage legal definition - Quimbee

Then no compelling reason to deny.

Thanks space commando whack!

Suggestion: File a lawsuit in any state claiming that your right to marry your mother, or your daughter, or your dog is being denied and that there is no rational basis or compelling government interest in doing so. Reference Obergefell as your evidence and claim that there is no difference in the implications or impact on society. Let us know how it goes. Meanwhile, give it a fucking rest.

 

[Boss]

Suggestion: File a lawsuit in any state claiming that your right to marry your mother, or your daughter, or your dog is being denied and that there is no rational basis or compelling government interest in doing so. Reference Obergefell as your evidence and claim that there is no difference in the implications or impact on society. Let us know how it goes. Meanwhile, give it a fucking rest.

Polygamists are already doing this and as we've seen from several of you pro-gay tards, you are ready to support that as well. And you will all end up aligning yourself with whatever perversion of marriage comes along because it's essentially the same argument. The only reason you're not taking that position now is because it's not popular yet among liberals. It was just 4 years ago, the most liberal candidate to ever run for president and win, didn't support same-sex marriage... wasn't popular enough. All it takes is a little time and a perception of inequity.

 

[Syriusly]

I'm not sure I get what you're trying to argue. If there is a danger of duress or coercion and that is why a state bans close relatives from marrying, are you saying that doesn't make sense because contracts cannot be entered into under duress or coercion? Other than marriage being somewhat different from other contracts, there's no reason that there can't be overlap or redundancy in the law.

It was much different than other contracts prior to Obergfell as there was the requirement that this contract, like no other that I know of be one that included one of each gender.

Now that exclussion is gone, and not replaced with a safeguard against incest. These justices, being knowledgable jurists removed that exclussion knowing full well that sex was not a requirement of marriage.

So it becomes a partnership of two (debatable) in which the state allows the participants to define what that contract is to them.

Since sex is not a requirement, and

1. A contract cannot be entered into for criminal purposes

2. A contract cannot be entered into while under duress or coercion

Tell me what compelling state interest there is for the state to allow any two people, not entering into an illegal contract, to marry.

Pop still trying to get someone to dance with his straw man

Tell me- why does Wisconsin allow First cousins to marry but only if they prove that they cannot procreate- but does not allow siblings to marry- regardless of their ability to procreate?

I don't know, but I'll hazard a guess

Procreation?

Procreation?

Wisconsin doesn't care whether siblings can procreate or not- always illegal.

But they care if First cousins can procreate- they can only marry if they cannot procreate.

So what makes you think 'procreation' is the reason Wisconsin forbids infertile siblings from marrying- but not infertile First cousins?

There would be no reason since sex is not a requirement to marry.

Only a Perv like you would think two adults would enter into a contract to have sex.

LOL- Pops gets cranky when I don't dance with his straw man.

Wisconsin makes his straw man burst into flames- since procreaton- and sex- clearly have nothing to do with Wisconsin's ban on the marriage of siblings.