Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Pop23]

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.

Did you not point out that there is some justification to the claim that sex is an integral part of marriage?

 

[Pop23]

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.

Suggestion, back up your arguments instead of this type of deflection.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Polygamists are doing what Boss man? Is there a case pending that we have not heard of? If so, how is it related to the same sex marriage issue. You wouldn't just be making shit up again would you?

At least two polygamous 'groups' have sued claiming their rights were violated since Obergefel.

And yes they claim to be using the same logic as Obergefel, and I support their right to sue.

But the case will hinge on whether or not the State's in question can defend the law.

Remember- anyone can sue- doesn't mean that they will win.

But if the States can't defend bans on polygamous marriage- then they shouldn't have the bans anyway.

OK, Thanks. Interesting. I'm not taking a position for or against polygamy. Just that it poses different issue and that it can't be dumbed down to a "if same sex marriage is legal, then this or that must also be"

Correct.

Such an 'argument' fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Unlike three or more persons seeking to 'marry,' same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts as marriage law is currently written.

Three or more persons aren't being 'denied' access to marriage law; it's simply a matter where there are no laws in existence that can accommodate such a configuration; one cannot be 'discriminated against' by being 'denied access' to a law that doesn't exist.

Note the word "currently"

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Did you not point out that there is some justification to the claim that sex is an integral part of marriage?

More accurately, sex can be an integral part of marriage. It doesn't have to be, but a refusal to engage in sex with a spouse for an extended period when both parties are physically capable can be considered grounds for divorce in some states. If neither party wants sex, there is no legal necessity.

Whether sex is satisfactory or unsatisfactory for the parties played no part that I saw, nor did I indicate I believe the state should be able to define what that means.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Then you can clearly state the States compelling interest?

I see, you're just a parrot.

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.

 

[Syriusly]

Yeah, you just disproved your claim, dumbass.

Quoting the law you said and showing that it applies only to the territories is proving myself wrong?

Don't think so.


>>>>

Read it again, dumbass. States are US territory and where the US has exclusive jurisdiction. You really are dumb as a box of rocks.

States are part of the United States- but a state is not a Territory.

States have their own jurisdiction.

Don't believe me?

Read the ruling which overturned DOMA.

 

[Syriusly]

Yeah, you just disproved your claim, dumbass.

Quoting the law you said and showing that it applies only to the territories is proving myself wrong?

Don't think so.


>>>>

Read it again, dumbass. States are US territory and where the US has exclusive jurisdiction. You really are dumb as a box of rocks.

Watching Saintie boy calling everyone 'dumbass' is as amusing as watching Newt Gingrich talk about the sanctity of marriage.

 

[airplanemechanic]

I asked my parents one time when I was visiting why they felt like gay marriage was ok since they were supposedly Christians. They both said the same thing, "I just don't care. It doesn't effect me so why should I care?"

I think that says a lot about American society in general. We've become such a "me" society that if something doesn't effect "me" then it doesn't matter. I think it's a little narcissistic if you ask me.

I would like to point something out though. A marriage licence is a legally binding document. It has a definition. When heterosexual couples married 5 years ago, marriage had one definition. Now, it has 2. One could argue every single marriage licence is now void because the definition of marriage has changed and should one of the partners decide they don't want any contract with their name on it that uses the word "marriage" that now can mean two gay dudes, they should be able to walk away from it as a null and void contract. Any time you change the meaning of a contract retroactively you void the contract as it is written.

Before you say it doesn't matter, think about it like this. When they got married, if they were alone and told someone they were married, they automatically knew it was an opposite sex partner. Now they have to specify.

Food for thought.

 

[Boss]

What Republicans really want to do is kill gays. Literally kill them so they are dead.

Nahh.. Now, it would be good if medical science finds a way to genetically eliminate homosexuality. I wonder if we'd have to fight the left for a woman's right to choose whether to have a gay or straight child?

 

[EverCurious]

I asked my parents one time when I was visiting why they felt like gay marriage was ok since they were supposedly Christians. They both said the same thing, "I just don't care. It doesn't effect me so why should I care?"

I think that says a lot about American society in general. We've become such a "me" society that if something doesn't effect "me" then it doesn't matter. I think it's a little narcissistic if you ask me.

I would like to point something out though. A marriage licence is a legally binding document. It has a definition. When heterosexual couples married 5 years ago, marriage had one definition. Now, it has 2. One could argue every single marriage licence is now void because the definition of marriage has changed and should one of the partners decide they don't want any contract with their name on it that uses the word "marriage" that now can mean two gay dudes, they should be able to walk away from it as a null and void contract. Any time you change the meaning of a contract retroactively you void the contract as it is written.

Before you say it doesn't matter, think about it like this. When they got married, if they were alone and told someone they were married, they automatically knew it was an opposite sex partner. Now they have to specify.

Food for thought.

I don't see why they have to specify. For example, I get called a "dude" all the time on this board because it's for whatever reason assumed that I must be a guy. Am I obligated to "fix" the mistaken thinking of the poster in question? No. Sure I can if I wish, but I don't have to. More importantly though, does it change the "worth" of my post if I am a female and not a male?

Most folks figure this kind of shit it out through conversation or don't ever figure it out and it doesn't matter to the conversation at hand. When someone says they're married I don't stop to ponder if they're straight or gay, any more than I stop to ponder if their wife/husband has blond/brunet/brown/black haired. But then again, I tend to see folks as "equals," as it were, regardless because I don't have some odd need to sort them out into race, religion, and sexual orientation/identity to determine their "moral status" while talking to them.

----

That said, on the matter of polygamy, while I support it personally, I can see there being a legal interest in the complexities of divorce, child custody, inheritances, insurance, and tons of other family related law cases.

Though situations like that exist even without any intent of polygamy; in the example of my divorce for example, my second husband has raised my son as "dad" pretty much since before my youngest could crawl - if I were to have died, it could have been an emotional double wammy for my son if my exe wouldn't allow him to retain a relationship with dad 2 for whatever reason. (In my case that would not have happened because my ex and I, and our 'new' wife/husband, have the equivalent of an "open parenting" arrangement heh but I can see it happening.) As far as the law is concerned /only/ the biological parents have any say in anything, step-parents (which is the closest equivalent to a second wife/husband) are basically given zero consideration on the "positive" side of things (they are given consideration if they have negative traits or w/e in custody cases though) thus in a situation of multiple wives/husbands, the law would have to default to bio children's parents which could be devastating for children involved - losing their step brother/sisters, plus stepparents who they see as parents regardless of biology. (I believe that's the safety net they talk about?)

In any event, there is a huge legal mess that'd have to be sorted out before polygamy could be made "legal," so I don't think it's "morals" or "the definition of marriage" that restrict it. That said, I do think it will become legal in the future given the number of non-Christians in the country (and more coming in daily) who have a legit religious reason to practice it; we're just going to have to do some legal juggling to figure out the details of it all. Like will ACA demand that insurance companies cover second wives and shit like that.

----

Incest, I just don't see becoming legal, even if one or two couples can push their cases through the courts because of a non-compelling reason for state restriction, I do not see there being enough people interested to have enough cases to push it to the supreme. Even if the SCOTUS ruled that x brother and their brother can get married, there's not enough incest people in the country, or any one state, to push for any kind of national legalization. Typically incest occurs when a population is small and trapped, or it occurs through arranged marriages to maintain control of family wealth, these are not really things that relate in America, 99.9% of us are too mobile and too aware of our "rights" to not choose our own husband/wife outside the family. I think society would have to regress to an "ownership" status of people for this to be more than a blip of oddity (like the person who can squeeze milk through their eye glands; sure it happens, but it's rare.) I guess I look at it like if some guy wants to marry his sister then whatever, I find it odd, but w/e. I personally find following a religion "odd," anal sex is "odd" to me, breast play is "odd" to me, doesn't mean others can't enjoy/do it though.

I'm a "too each their own thing" kind of person and I have no need nor desire to tell others what's "right" or "wrong" in their personal relationships. Kind of like I don't particularly like my eldest boy's long time girlfriend, she's a snobby little bitch who I'm pretty sure is going to break his heart, but I support his decision to continue his long-standing relationship with her, even knowing that they'll probably get married, because in the long run, ultimately, as long as my son is happy then I will be happy for him/with him. Bottom line for me is that even as a parent, I do not have the "right" to tell my son who he can and cannot marry, why in the hell would I have the right to tell a stranger who they could and could not marry? I personally have to respect /his/ choice, and /their/ choice, as adult American's who have free will and their own opinions, feelings, and tastes. It's not my place to decide for someone else, and that's pretty much the basis of where I stand with the entire issue of marriage "restrictions." ~shrug~

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It's a violation of federal law, the 1862 Morill Anti Bigamy Act signed into law by Herr Lincoln Über Alles.

I believe that law applied to US Territories, not that it applied to States.


>>>>

Doesn't matter. Federal laws can be overturned by Federal courts

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

Polygamists are doing what Boss man? Is there a case pending that we have not heard of? If so, how is it related to the same sex marriage issue. You wouldn't just be making shit up again would you?

Well I don't know who "we" is.. I just know that I read about a case out west, I think it was Idaho... a man had brought the case and won but the state had appealed and it was heading up the ladder. So I don't know what happened and haven't been following it but they sounded like it was going to be interesting because of the recent SCOTUS ruling. If not his case there will be one.. it will make it to SCOTUS and again.. you will have come to support it because you have to now.

Don't presume to tell me what I have to support. Unlike you, I can evaluate each issues on it's own merits, apply critical thinking, and come to a conclusion about it, rather than just dumb it down to a false equivalency.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"they sounded like it was going to be interesting because of the recent SCOTUS ruling. If not his case there will be one.. it will make it to SCOTUS and again.. you will have come to support it because you have to now

The above is a fallacy of false equivalence and a fallacy of false logic, that they are alike and that one causes the other.

They are not alike, and there is no causation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"I think that says a lot about American society in general. We've become such a "me" society that if something doesn't effect "me" then it doesn't matter. I think it's a little narcissistic if you ask me?" is a religious argument.

Marriage is governed in the US by secular law.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Did you not point out that there is some justification to the claim that sex is an integral part of marriage?

More accurately, sex can be an integral part of marriage. It doesn't have to be, but a refusal to engage in sex with a spouse for an extended period when both parties are physically capable can be considered grounds for divorce in some states. If neither party wants sex, there is no legal necessity.

Whether sex is satisfactory or unsatisfactory for the parties played no part that I saw, nor did I indicate I believe the state should be able to define what that means.

But what your argue is no different to a breakup of any corporate entities when the partners expressed an expectation of what those partners will bring to the corporation and they need a judge to complete the legal dissolution of the corp, because expectations were not met

The couple sets and expresses those expectations, not the State.

Sex is not a requirement or the state could set those requirements and could "audit" the couple for complience

 

[Pop23]

I asked my parents one time when I was visiting why they felt like gay marriage was ok since they were supposedly Christians. They both said the same thing, "I just don't care. It doesn't effect me so why should I care?"

I think that says a lot about American society in general. We've become such a "me" society that if something doesn't effect "me" then it doesn't matter. I think it's a little narcissistic if you ask me.

I would like to point something out though. A marriage licence is a legally binding document. It has a definition. When heterosexual couples married 5 years ago, marriage had one definition. Now, it has 2. One could argue every single marriage licence is now void because the definition of marriage has changed and should one of the partners decide they don't want any contract with their name on it that uses the word "marriage" that now can mean two gay dudes, they should be able to walk away from it as a null and void contract. Any time you change the meaning of a contract retroactively you void the contract as it is written.

Before you say it doesn't matter, think about it like this. When they got married, if they were alone and told someone they were married, they automatically knew it was an opposite sex partner. Now they have to specify.

Food for thought.

I don't see why they have to specify. For example, I get called a "dude" all the time on this board because it's for whatever reason assumed that I must be a guy. Am I obligated to "fix" the mistaken thinking of the poster in question? No. Sure I can if I wish, but I don't have to. More importantly though, does it change the "worth" of my post if I am a female and not a male?

Most folks figure this kind of shit it out through conversation or don't ever figure it out and it doesn't matter to the conversation at hand. When someone says they're married I don't stop to ponder if they're straight or gay, any more than I stop to ponder if their wife/husband has blond/brunet/brown/black haired. But then again, I tend to see folks as "equals," as it were, regardless because I don't have some odd need to sort them out into race, religion, and sexual orientation/identity to determine their "moral status" while talking to them.

----

That said, on the matter of polygamy, while I support it personally, I can see there being a legal interest in the complexities of divorce, child custody, inheritances, insurance, and tons of other family related law cases.

Though situations like that exist even without any intent of polygamy; in the example of my divorce for example, my second husband has raised my son as "dad" pretty much since before my youngest could crawl - if I were to have died, it could have been an emotional double wammy for my son if my exe wouldn't allow him to retain a relationship with dad 2 for whatever reason. (In my case that would not have happened because my ex and I, and our 'new' wife/husband, have the equivalent of an "open parenting" arrangement heh but I can see it happening.) As far as the law is concerned /only/ the biological parents have any say in anything, step-parents (which is the closest equivalent to a second wife/husband) are basically given zero consideration on the "positive" side of things (they are given consideration if they have negative traits or w/e in custody cases though) thus in a situation of multiple wives/husbands, the law would have to default to bio children's parents which could be devastating for children involved - losing their step brother/sisters, plus stepparents who they see as parents regardless of biology. (I believe that's the safety net they talk about?)

In any event, there is a huge legal mess that'd have to be sorted out before polygamy could be made "legal," so I don't think it's "morals" or "the definition of marriage" that restrict it. That said, I do think it will become legal in the future given the number of non-Christians in the country (and more coming in daily) who have a legit religious reason to practice it; we're just going to have to do some legal juggling to figure out the details of it all. Like will ACA demand that insurance companies cover second wives and shit like that.

----

Incest, I just don't see becoming legal, even if one or two couples can push their cases through the courts because of a non-compelling reason for state restriction, I do not see there being enough people interested to have enough cases to push it to the supreme. Even if the SCOTUS ruled that x brother and their brother can get married, there's not enough incest people in the country, or any one state, to push for any kind of national legalization. Typically incest occurs when a population is small and trapped, or it occurs through arranged marriages to maintain control of family wealth, these are not really things that relate in America, 99.9% of us are too mobile and too aware of our "rights" to not choose our own husband/wife outside the family. I think society would have to regress to an "ownership" status of people for this to be more than a blip of oddity (like the person who can squeeze milk through their eye glands; sure it happens, but it's rare.) I guess I look at it like if some guy wants to marry his sister then whatever, I find it odd, but w/e. I personally find following a religion "odd," anal sex is "odd" to me, breast play is "odd" to me, doesn't mean others can't enjoy/do it though.

I'm a "too each their own thing" kind of person and I have no need nor desire to tell others what's "right" or "wrong" in their personal relationships. Kind of like I don't particularly like my eldest boy's long time girlfriend, she's a snobby little bitch who I'm pretty sure is going to break his heart, but I support his decision to continue his long-standing relationship with her, even knowing that they'll probably get married, because in the long run, ultimately, as long as my son is happy then I will be happy for him/with him. Bottom line for me is that even as a parent, I do not have the "right" to tell my son who he can and cannot marry, why in the hell would I have the right to tell a stranger who they could and could not marry? I personally have to respect /his/ choice, and /their/ choice, as adult American's who have free will and their own opinions, feelings, and tastes. It's not my place to decide for someone else, and that's pretty much the basis of where I stand with the entire issue of marriage "restrictions." ~shrug~

Long post

As for incest, you mistake marriage with sex.

You imply that sex, an act that creates the crime, is a requirement of marriage. If it were you have an argument, yet no one yet has come up with a Statute requiring sex be a part of marriage.

Incest will remain illegal, but it is the states responsibility to prove a crime happened, they cannot presume a crime will happen within the partnership.

To make a claim otherwise, then the state would have the authority to define what qualifies as marital sex.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Did you not point out that there is some justification to the claim that sex is an integral part of marriage?

More accurately, sex can be an integral part of marriage. It doesn't have to be, but a refusal to engage in sex with a spouse for an extended period when both parties are physically capable can be considered grounds for divorce in some states. If neither party wants sex, there is no legal necessity.

Whether sex is satisfactory or unsatisfactory for the parties played no part that I saw, nor did I indicate I believe the state should be able to define what that means.

But what your argue is no different to a breakup of any corporate entities when the partners expressed an expectation of what those partners will bring to the corporation and they need a judge to complete the legal dissolution of the corp, because expectations were not met

The couple sets and expresses those expectations, not the State.

Sex is not a requirement or the state could set those requirements and could "audit" the couple for complience

What the couple sets as expressions of their expectation is not compelling to the state setting the secular law. Sex and procreation may be part of the couple's expressed desires but not bind at all on the state.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Did you not point out that there is some justification to the claim that sex is an integral part of marriage?

More accurately, sex can be an integral part of marriage. It doesn't have to be, but a refusal to engage in sex with a spouse for an extended period when both parties are physically capable can be considered grounds for divorce in some states. If neither party wants sex, there is no legal necessity.

Whether sex is satisfactory or unsatisfactory for the parties played no part that I saw, nor did I indicate I believe the state should be able to define what that means.

But what your argue is no different to a breakup of any corporate entities when the partners expressed an expectation of what those partners will bring to the corporation and they need a judge to complete the legal dissolution of the corp, because expectations were not met

The couple sets and expresses those expectations, not the State.

Sex is not a requirement or the state could set those requirements and could "audit" the couple for complience

What the couple sets as expressions of their expectation is not compelling to the state setting the secular law. Sex and procreation may be part of the couple's expressed desires but not bind at all on the state.

BINGO!

The couple, not the State is allowed to set the expectations within the marriage.

Tradition may be that that the expectation within the partnership contain a sexual component, but the law requires none.

So what is the States compelling interest in denying same sex siblings the "right" to marry for the benefits afforded married couples?

 

[Pop23]

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.

Then you can clearly state the States compelling interest?

I see, you're just a parrot.

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.

Then there is no compelling state interest in the denial of the individuals rights.

Thanks again

 

[Silhouette]

There is a compelling interest: providing children with a mother and father who won't bear retarded children. And that's a topic gays don't want to talk about because it means a state CAN regulate marriage when it comes to the wellbeing of children. Just not when it comes to systematically depriving them of either a mother or father for life..then "gay marriage is immune from state interference even if children will come to harm"..