Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Pop23]

Prior to the qualification that marriage was between a man and a woman, it would have been impossible.

But you knew that, so you deflect.

You understand equal protection, equal application of the law, states requirement to prove a compelling interest and due process.

Then make your case for incest marriage. Are you saying there is no compelling state interest in refusing to sanction it?

If so, present your argument.

(psst....speaking of deflection, this is where your abandon your entire argument).

Incest is a crime.

The deflection is that Obergfell legalized gay marriage (the marketing of gay marriage), it legalized same sex marriage.

Can you supply one Statute that requires married couples have sex?

If you can't, then please state the compelling state interest in denying siblings the right to enter into a partnership.

I'll help Ya out lil fool, it doesn't exist.

And exactly as I predicted you would.....you deflected. Blathering obessively about incest marriage....until you're asked to make your case. And then predictably deflecting and abandoning your entire argument.

If you're going to treat your argument like garbage to be tossed on the rhetorical midden heap, surely you can understand why we treat your argument the same way.

And exactly as I predicted, you can't back up you're silly traditionalist wingnut assertion by supplying a statute that requires sex within a marriage.

Typical wingnut nuttery

 

[Pop23]

Prior to the qualification that marriage was between a man and a woman, it would have been impossible.

But you knew that, so you deflect.

You understand equal protection, equal application of the law, states requirement to prove a compelling interest and due process.

Then make your case for incest marriage. Are you saying there is no compelling state interest in refusing to sanction it?

If so, present your argument.

(psst....speaking of deflection, this is where your abandon your entire argument).

Incest is a crime.

The deflection is that Obergfell legalized gay marriage (the marketing of gay marriage), it legalized same sex marriage.

Can you supply one Statute that requires married couples have sex?

If you can't, then please state the compelling state interest in denying siblings the right to enter into a partnership.

I'll help Ya out lil fool, it doesn't exist.

According to you it doesn't. According to the law, at this point, it does. If the law is challenged we will see what the states argue is the interest in preventing immediate family from marrying.

I have given you multiple possible reasons other than procreation that could be argued, but you have dismissed them. I doubt you would accept any possible reason as it would go against your narrative.

You're under the misconception that Pop cares about any of the reasons. Or even discussing the topic. The purpose of his incest marriage obsession is to shut these threads down. He's trolling.

So troll the troll. I call it 'ubertrolling'.

Typical deflection away from producing a compelling state interest to deny same sex siblings their constitutional rights.

Go ahead you bigot hater wingnut, use the same arguments that kept the Lovings from marriage and claim you're not a racist.

Nobody's buying it!

 

[Skylar]

Prior to the qualification that marriage was between a man and a woman, it would have been impossible.

But you knew that, so you deflect.

You understand equal protection, equal application of the law, states requirement to prove a compelling interest and due process.

Then make your case for incest marriage. Are you saying there is no compelling state interest in refusing to sanction it?

If so, present your argument.

(psst....speaking of deflection, this is where your abandon your entire argument).

Incest is a crime.

The deflection is that Obergfell legalized gay marriage (the marketing of gay marriage), it legalized same sex marriage.

Can you supply one Statute that requires married couples have sex?

If you can't, then please state the compelling state interest in denying siblings the right to enter into a partnership.

I'll help Ya out lil fool, it doesn't exist.

And exactly as I predicted you would.....you deflected. Blathering obessively about incest marriage....until you're asked to make your case. And then predictably deflecting and abandoning your entire argument.

If you're going to treat your argument like garbage to be tossed on the rhetorical midden heap, surely you can understand why we treat your argument the same way.

And exactly as I predicted, you can't back up you're silly traditionalist wingnut assertion by supplying a statute that requires sex within a marriage.

Typical wingnut nuttery

Strawman. When have I ever claimed that marriage requires sex?

Instead, I've asked you to make your case for the topic you are absolutely obsessed with: incest marriage. You discuss virtually nothing else in any thread. No matter the thread you join....its all about incest marriage.

Yet when I ask you to offer your argument for incest marriage, for polygamy......you abandon both.

Exactly as I told you you would.

 

[Pop23]

Prior to the qualification that marriage was between a man and a woman, it would have been impossible.

But you knew that, so you deflect.

You understand equal protection, equal application of the law, states requirement to prove a compelling interest and due process.

Then make your case for incest marriage. Are you saying there is no compelling state interest in refusing to sanction it?

If so, present your argument.

(psst....speaking of deflection, this is where your abandon your entire argument).

Incest is a crime.

The deflection is that Obergfell legalized gay marriage (the marketing of gay marriage), it legalized same sex marriage.

Can you supply one Statute that requires married couples have sex?

If you can't, then please state the compelling state interest in denying siblings the right to enter into a partnership.

I'll help Ya out lil fool, it doesn't exist.

And exactly as I predicted you would.....you deflected. Blathering obessively about incest marriage....until you're asked to make your case. And then predictably deflecting and abandoning your entire argument.

If you're going to treat your argument like garbage to be tossed on the rhetorical midden heap, surely you can understand why we treat your argument the same way.

And exactly as I predicted, you can't back up you're silly traditionalist wingnut assertion by supplying a statute that requires sex within a marriage.

Typical wingnut nuttery

Strawman. When have I ever claimed that marriage requires sex?

Instead, I've asked you to make your case for the topic you are absolutely obsessed with: incest marriage. You discuss virtually nothing else in any thread. No matter the thread you join....its all about incest marriage.

Yet when I ask you to offer your argument for incest marriage, for polygamy......you abandon both.

Exactly as I told you you would.

Strawman

Incest is illegal. Contracts cannot be entered into for illegal purposes.

Do you never tire of receiving a good ass kicking you hater dupe.

 

[Skylar]

Prior to the qualification that marriage was between a man and a woman, it would have been impossible.

But you knew that, so you deflect.

You understand equal protection, equal application of the law, states requirement to prove a compelling interest and due process.

Then make your case for incest marriage. Are you saying there is no compelling state interest in refusing to sanction it?

If so, present your argument.

(psst....speaking of deflection, this is where your abandon your entire argument).

Incest is a crime.

The deflection is that Obergfell legalized gay marriage (the marketing of gay marriage), it legalized same sex marriage.

Can you supply one Statute that requires married couples have sex?

If you can't, then please state the compelling state interest in denying siblings the right to enter into a partnership.

I'll help Ya out lil fool, it doesn't exist.

According to you it doesn't. According to the law, at this point, it does. If the law is challenged we will see what the states argue is the interest in preventing immediate family from marrying.

I have given you multiple possible reasons other than procreation that could be argued, but you have dismissed them. I doubt you would accept any possible reason as it would go against your narrative.

You're under the misconception that Pop cares about any of the reasons. Or even discussing the topic. The purpose of his incest marriage obsession is to shut these threads down. He's trolling.

So troll the troll. I call it 'ubertrolling'.

Typical deflection away from producing a compelling state interest to deny same sex siblings their constitutional rights.

Go ahead you bigot hater wingnut, use the same arguments that kept the Lovings from marriage and claim you're not a racist.

Nobody's buying it!

I'm not the one bringing up polygamy and incest marriage. You are. Obsessively. In every thread you post in.

I'm merely asking you to make your case for each, as you will discuss nothing else. And predictably.....you deflect. Babbing about arguments I've never made. Anything but presenting your argument.

Shrugs....you keep running. I'll keep laughing. Deal?

 

[Skylar]

Then make your case for incest marriage. Are you saying there is no compelling state interest in refusing to sanction it?

If so, present your argument.

(psst....speaking of deflection, this is where your abandon your entire argument).

Incest is a crime.

The deflection is that Obergfell legalized gay marriage (the marketing of gay marriage), it legalized same sex marriage.

Can you supply one Statute that requires married couples have sex?

If you can't, then please state the compelling state interest in denying siblings the right to enter into a partnership.

I'll help Ya out lil fool, it doesn't exist.

And exactly as I predicted you would.....you deflected. Blathering obessively about incest marriage....until you're asked to make your case. And then predictably deflecting and abandoning your entire argument.

If you're going to treat your argument like garbage to be tossed on the rhetorical midden heap, surely you can understand why we treat your argument the same way.

And exactly as I predicted, you can't back up you're silly traditionalist wingnut assertion by supplying a statute that requires sex within a marriage.

Typical wingnut nuttery

Strawman. When have I ever claimed that marriage requires sex?

Instead, I've asked you to make your case for the topic you are absolutely obsessed with: incest marriage. You discuss virtually nothing else in any thread. No matter the thread you join....its all about incest marriage.

Yet when I ask you to offer your argument for incest marriage, for polygamy......you abandon both.

Exactly as I told you you would.

Strawman

Incest is illegal. Contracts cannot be entered into for illegal purposes.

Do you never tire of ass kicking you hater dupe.

For the second time....when did I ever say that marriage requires sex?

Just quote me. Or....you can continue to run, desperately trying to change the topic. Either works for me.

 

[Pop23]

Then make your case for incest marriage. Are you saying there is no compelling state interest in refusing to sanction it?

If so, present your argument.

(psst....speaking of deflection, this is where your abandon your entire argument).

Incest is a crime.

The deflection is that Obergfell legalized gay marriage (the marketing of gay marriage), it legalized same sex marriage.

Can you supply one Statute that requires married couples have sex?

If you can't, then please state the compelling state interest in denying siblings the right to enter into a partnership.

I'll help Ya out lil fool, it doesn't exist.

According to you it doesn't. According to the law, at this point, it does. If the law is challenged we will see what the states argue is the interest in preventing immediate family from marrying.

I have given you multiple possible reasons other than procreation that could be argued, but you have dismissed them. I doubt you would accept any possible reason as it would go against your narrative.

You're under the misconception that Pop cares about any of the reasons. Or even discussing the topic. The purpose of his incest marriage obsession is to shut these threads down. He's trolling.

So troll the troll. I call it 'ubertrolling'.

Typical deflection away from producing a compelling state interest to deny same sex siblings their constitutional rights.

Go ahead you bigot hater wingnut, use the same arguments that kept the Lovings from marriage and claim you're not a racist.

Nobody's buying it!

I'm not the one bringing up polygamy and incest marriage. You are. Obsessively. In every thread you post in.

I'm merely asking you to make your case for each, as you will discuss nothing else. And predictably.....you deflect. Babbing about arguments I've never made. Anything but presenting your argument.

Shrugs....you keep running. I'll keep laughing. Deal?

Just as your dishonest side marketed same gender marriage as "gay marriage", you hater dupes are trying to market same sex sibling marriage as incest!

Incest is a crime involving sexual contact, you have yet to provide a statute requiring sex in a marriage.

That says a lot about you're warped mind.

You probably think siblings should be separated at birth because they might have sex.

Come out of the dark ages and step into my enlightened progressive world.

 

[Pop23]

Incest is a crime.

The deflection is that Obergfell legalized gay marriage (the marketing of gay marriage), it legalized same sex marriage.

Can you supply one Statute that requires married couples have sex?

If you can't, then please state the compelling state interest in denying siblings the right to enter into a partnership.

I'll help Ya out lil fool, it doesn't exist.

And exactly as I predicted you would.....you deflected. Blathering obessively about incest marriage....until you're asked to make your case. And then predictably deflecting and abandoning your entire argument.

If you're going to treat your argument like garbage to be tossed on the rhetorical midden heap, surely you can understand why we treat your argument the same way.

And exactly as I predicted, you can't back up you're silly traditionalist wingnut assertion by supplying a statute that requires sex within a marriage.

Typical wingnut nuttery

Strawman. When have I ever claimed that marriage requires sex?

Instead, I've asked you to make your case for the topic you are absolutely obsessed with: incest marriage. You discuss virtually nothing else in any thread. No matter the thread you join....its all about incest marriage.

Yet when I ask you to offer your argument for incest marriage, for polygamy......you abandon both.

Exactly as I told you you would.

Strawman

Incest is illegal. Contracts cannot be entered into for illegal purposes.

Do you never tire of ass kicking you hater dupe.

For the second time....when did I ever say that marriage requires sex?

Just quote me. Or....you can continue to run, desperately trying to change the topic. Either works for me.

When you imply that same sex sibling marriage would be incestuous we can easily see the warped, hater dupe world you live in.

 

[Skylar]

How can Alabama no longer recognize marriage under SB377.....when contracts of marriage are legal records of marriage in Alabama under SB377?

Well, I have answered this several times but I can answer again if you like...

It's because "licensing" is a legal authorization on behalf of the authority to do something and administering or documenting legal and statutory contractual arrangements between private parties is not.

Do you believe that licensing is the only means by which the government can legally authorize someone to do something?

Obviously SB377 doesn't. As Section, Paragraph 2B makes ludicriously clear:

(2) A statement that the parties are legally authorized to be married.

And there you have it. Legally authorized. So how can the state eliminate recognition of marriage......but legally authorize people to be married?

Sigh.....Silly Bossy. He really didn't think this through.

This bill would abolish the requirement to obtain a marriage license from the judge of probate. This bill would provide that marriage would be entered into by simple contract, would specify the information required to be included in the contract of marriage, would specify that each party entering into a contract of marriage would submit a properly executed contract to the judge of probate for recording, and would require the judge of probate to forward a copy of the contract of marriage to the Office of Vital Statistics.
[/quote=]

A simple contract that requires that participants are LEGALLY AUTHORIZED to be married under Alabama law.

Destroying your argument that the State has no role in granting permission to marriage. And with the contracts of marriage recorded as marriage

Section 1. (a) Effective July 1, 2015, the only requirement to be married in this state shall be for parties who are otherwise legally authorized to be married to enter into a contract of marriage as provided herein.
(b) A contract to be married shall contain the
following minimum information:
(1) The names of the parties.
(2) A statement that the parties are legally
authorized to be married.
(3) A statement that the parties voluntarily and
based on each parties' own freewill enter into a marriage.
(4) The signatures of the parties.

Again... the purpose of the bill is NOT to infringe on any person's constitutional rights or defy the recent SCOTUS ruling. IF you believe that is what I have argued or what I have claimed this bill will do, then you are either being dishonest or you've misinterpreted what I've posted.

Strawman. I'm not arguing against the law, as you already know.

For the 8th time, I've argued that your claims about SB377 have been wildly inaccurate. As the State of Alabama still legally authorizes marriage, still recognizes it, still records it, with none of the laws pertaining to marriage changed save a license being a contract.

Even you can't explain how this is 'killing homosexual marriage'. Or anything else.

And of course your own citation decimates your own argument:

(2) A statement that the parties are legally authorized to be married.

You've insisted under SB377 that the State no longer authorizes marriage. Yet SB377 requires that those getting married are authorized by the State to do so. The exact opposite of what you claim.

And 'poof'. Your argument collapses yet again. Do you ever tire of being wrong?

 

[Skylar]

And exactly as I predicted you would.....you deflected. Blathering obessively about incest marriage....until you're asked to make your case. And then predictably deflecting and abandoning your entire argument.

If you're going to treat your argument like garbage to be tossed on the rhetorical midden heap, surely you can understand why we treat your argument the same way.

And exactly as I predicted, you can't back up you're silly traditionalist wingnut assertion by supplying a statute that requires sex within a marriage.

Typical wingnut nuttery

Strawman. When have I ever claimed that marriage requires sex?

Instead, I've asked you to make your case for the topic you are absolutely obsessed with: incest marriage. You discuss virtually nothing else in any thread. No matter the thread you join....its all about incest marriage.

Yet when I ask you to offer your argument for incest marriage, for polygamy......you abandon both.

Exactly as I told you you would.

Strawman

Incest is illegal. Contracts cannot be entered into for illegal purposes.

Do you never tire of ass kicking you hater dupe.

For the second time....when did I ever say that marriage requires sex?

Just quote me. Or....you can continue to run, desperately trying to change the topic. Either works for me.

When you imply that same sex sibling marriage would be incestuous we can easily see the warped, hater dupe world you live in.

That's not a quote. That's you making up a narrative for me that I've never uttered as a hapless deflection of a cartoon simple request:

Make your case for incest marriage and polygamy.

You speak of nothing else. In any thread. You're simply obsessed. But when asked to present your argument....you flee. Even you treat your claims like garbage.

Why would you expect me to treat you claims any differently?

 

[Boss]

Are you saying there is no compelling state interest in refusing to sanction it?

It is not up to the individual to disprove your claim of state compelling interest. If this were the case, the state could just deem whatever to be in 'compelling interest' and that would be that. A free society such as ours is not shackled to such tyranny, we are a self-governing society. We can challenge what you claim to be "compelling interest" the same as it was challenged for gays or any number of other individuals who had an issue with their rights through the years. We can also establish what IS or ISN'T a "compelling interest" and forge that into law because we retain that power as the people.

The onus is on YOU to provide a "compelling interest" and if you cannot provide one we all agree on and accept, then it can be brought into question... which it has been. None of you has provided a sufficient "compelling interest" in light of the recent SCOTUS ruling. You sound exactly like the people who opposed gay marriage. It's as if those justifications are all legitimate again!

 

[Skylar]

Are you saying there is no compelling state interest in refusing to sanction it?

It is not up to the individual to disprove your claim of state compelling interest.

If you have a case to make for incest marriage and polygamy....make it.

What are the odds you'll give us the same snivelling excuses that Pop always does?

 

[Pop23]

And exactly as I predicted, you can't back up you're silly traditionalist wingnut assertion by supplying a statute that requires sex within a marriage.

Typical wingnut nuttery

Strawman. When have I ever claimed that marriage requires sex?

Instead, I've asked you to make your case for the topic you are absolutely obsessed with: incest marriage. You discuss virtually nothing else in any thread. No matter the thread you join....its all about incest marriage.

Yet when I ask you to offer your argument for incest marriage, for polygamy......you abandon both.

Exactly as I told you you would.

Strawman

Incest is illegal. Contracts cannot be entered into for illegal purposes.

Do you never tire of ass kicking you hater dupe.

For the second time....when did I ever say that marriage requires sex?

Just quote me. Or....you can continue to run, desperately trying to change the topic. Either works for me.

When you imply that same sex sibling marriage would be incestuous we can easily see the warped, hater dupe world you live in.

That's not a quote. That's you making up a narrative for me that I've never uttered as a hapless deflection of a cartoon simple request:

Make your case for incest marriage and polygamy.

You speak of nothing else. In any thread. You're simply obsessed. But when asked to present your argument....you flee. Even you treat your claims like garbage.

Why would you expect me to treat you claims any differently?

You keep claiming I promote illegal activities, which I never have, then have the utter audacity to ask for a quote from me?

Par for the course for someone who argues that his fellow citizens be denied the very rights he enjoys. And why does he argue that, because these nice, law abiding citizens were born the way they were.

Next you will want to turn back the clock to when sodamy was illegal and we threw gays and blacks into prison for simply exsersizing their God given rights!

Go back to your clan of knuckle draggers and let us progressive Americans take care of things.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to show me those lawmakers who disagreed with me.

You managed to quote yourself as those lawmakers. But so far...not the lawmakers themselves. Odd that. Its almost like you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

 

[Boss]

Strawman. I'm not arguing against the law, as you already know.

No... What YOU want is to argue something nonsensical. You want to pretend that I am arguing the SCOTUS ruling isn't the law of the land and states don't have to adhere to it. That I can just defiantly wave my rebel flag and stand in the schoolhouse door to deny gay people their rights the same as I once did against the blacks... THAT is the argument you think we're having. That is what you are here typing so fervently to protest! You've stereotyped me, judged me based on your stereotype, and now you're being the typical bigot you are in reality. No one can talk to you or reason with you... your mind is totally made up about me and anyone who doesn't march in lockstep with your bigoted views.

 

[Skylar]

Strawman. When have I ever claimed that marriage requires sex?

Instead, I've asked you to make your case for the topic you are absolutely obsessed with: incest marriage. You discuss virtually nothing else in any thread. No matter the thread you join....its all about incest marriage.

Yet when I ask you to offer your argument for incest marriage, for polygamy......you abandon both.

Exactly as I told you you would.

Strawman

Incest is illegal. Contracts cannot be entered into for illegal purposes.

Do you never tire of ass kicking you hater dupe.

For the second time....when did I ever say that marriage requires sex?

Just quote me. Or....you can continue to run, desperately trying to change the topic. Either works for me.

When you imply that same sex sibling marriage would be incestuous we can easily see the warped, hater dupe world you live in.

That's not a quote. That's you making up a narrative for me that I've never uttered as a hapless deflection of a cartoon simple request:

Make your case for incest marriage and polygamy.

You speak of nothing else. In any thread. You're simply obsessed. But when asked to present your argument....you flee. Even you treat your claims like garbage.

Why would you expect me to treat you claims any differently?

You keep claiming I promote illegal activities, which I never have, then have the utter audacity to ask for a quote from me?

Par for the course for someone who argues that his fellow citizens be denied the very rights he enjoys. And why does he argue that, because these nice, law abiding citizens were born the way they were.

Next you will want to turn back the clock to when sodamy was illegal and we through gays and blacks into prison for simply exsersizing their God given rights!

Go back to your clan of knuckle draggers and let us progressive Americans take care of things.

I say that you speak of nothing but incest marriage and polygamy. On any thread. They are your sole topic of conversation, your personal obsession.

Make your case for polygamy and incest marriage. As you certainly couldn't quote me ever saying that sex is a requirement of marriage.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Are you saying there is no compelling state interest in refusing to sanction it?

It is not up to the individual to disprove your claim of state compelling interest. If this were the case, the state could just deem whatever to be in 'compelling interest' and that would be that. A free society such as ours is not shackled to such tyranny, we are a self-governing society. We can challenge what you claim to be "compelling interest" the same as it was challenged for gays or any number of other individuals who had an issue with their rights through the years. We can also establish what IS or ISN'T a "compelling interest" and forge that into law because we retain that power as the people.

The onus is on YOU to provide a "compelling interest" and if you cannot provide one we all agree on and accept, then it can be brought into question... which it has been. None of you has provided a sufficient "compelling interest" in light of the recent SCOTUS ruling. You sound exactly like the people who opposed gay marriage. It's as if those justifications are all legitimate again!

I have been hanging back and watching this shit fly for a while now and I just can’t stand it anymore. To say that close relative marriage is the same as same sex marriage is that same and if the latter is allowed , so must the former is just as stupid as stupid gets. I wrote this well prior to Obergefell and it still has relevance now. If anyone thinks that they will kill gay marriage with this sort of nonsensical fear mongering, you are sadly mistaken. The burden of proof to provide a compelling reason-or at least a rational basis- for not allowing related people to marry. Without taking a position on it here, this is one way they are likely to be able to do just that. Note that none of these reasons have anything to do with unrelated same sex couples.



On Marriage Between Close Relatives: By Progressive Patriot 1.2.14


So the argument is that if gay marriage is to be allowed, there is no reason to not allow marriage between brothers and sisters; parents and siblings and in short, any two consenting adults. Furthermore, anyone who opposes that idea is being accused of hypocrisy and of being opposed to true equality……marriage for all.


Before I proceed, I want to be perfectly clear about the fact that I know exactly why people raise this and other similar issues. It’s a blatant and intellectually dishonest attempt to derail the conversation regarding marriage equality- marriage that is equal to what Heterosexuals enjoy-nothing more- and to thwart the progress being made by the gay community in combating bigotry


They are using a logical fallacy in the form of weak analogy because there are important and distinct difference between marriages involving unrelated people, as opposed to closely related people. As we will see below, there are many pitfalls related to inbreeding, beyond the obvious biological/ genetic issues. The relationship between close relatives, married or not will never be comparable to that of two unrelated people.


Moreover it is an appeal to hypocrisy, a type of ad hominem in which the opponent is attacked for being inconsistent rather than making an argument directly related to the issue, because they are unable to do so. It matters little if there is in fact any inconsistency, or hypocrisy because the issue has no bearing on the merits of the main argument-in this case for gay marriage.


So, while I will-to a point- indulge those making this argument, I am not fooled by it for a nanosecond. They’re making a simple matter complicated and attempting to stoke the fears of others who may be prone to think, oh my god!


Now to get to the point. I am well aware of the fact that while there is no universal prohibition against consanguineous marriage, however “all human societies however primitive or geographically isolated, prohibit the mating of first degree relatives, namely the mating between parents and children and brothers and sisters (incest)”. http://www.infolanka.com/org/genetics/essays/essayrj3.htm

Aside from siblings and parent-child marriage, and such, kin groupings may be extremely nepotistic and distrusting of non-family members in the larger society. In this context, non-democratic regimes emerge as a consequence of individuals turning to reliable kinship groupings for support rather than to the state or the free market. It has been found, for example, that societies having high levels of familism tend to have low levels of generalized trust and civic engagement (Realo, Allik, & Greenfield, 2008), two important correlates of democracy. Moreover, to people in closely related kin groups, individualism and the recognition of individual rights, which are part of the cultural idiom of democracy, are perceived as strange and counterintuitive ideological abstractions (Sailer, 2004 - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/04/cousin-marriage-and-thdemocracy.html#sthash.YYRm9Or4.dpuf


In addition, while over time marriage has taken on many forms and meaning, and the relationships between that participants have evolved, one point that there seems to be a wide consensus on is that a central part of marriage is to form a new family out of two existing families, in order to pool resources and create alliances. To propose marriage between close relatives, regardless of whether or not they are sexual relationships is going beyond redefining marriage and family to destroying the concept of the family unit as we know it. Family lines and relationships would be blurred and distorted beyond recognition, and rendered meaningless. A daughter might also be a wife, a brother might also be a husband. Would he be a father or an uncle to any children that she might bear? Consider the legal and social ramifications.


Some societies are endogamous in nature- meaning societies that are stratified—that is, divided into unequal classes—often prescribe different degrees of endogamy where marriage opportunities are narrowly defined within a group. We on the other hand are an exogamous society. Through exogamy, otherwise unrelated households or lineages will form relationships through marriage, thus strengthening social solidarity. Opportunities for marriage are generally open and cross class, religious and ethnic lines resulting in a more diverse and thus healthier society. Yes, I should say, there is indeed a compelling government and societal interest in not allowing close relative marriage. It should be understood by the traditionalists, that close relative marriage would be the real departure from tradition.

 

[Boss]

Are you saying there is no compelling state interest in refusing to sanction it?

It is not up to the individual to disprove your claim of state compelling interest.

If you have a case to make for incest marriage and polygamy....make it.

What are the odds you'll give us the same snivelling excuses that Pop always does?

Polygamists are already making it. Incestophiles will eventually make it. It will all work it's way through the system and the liberal SCOTUS will probably ordain it into law. By that time, you will have had some "come to jesus" moment when you realize you can't be a hypocrite and you have to support it. This isn't some fucking cartoon or sit-com...things don't happen in 22 minutes or a day... it takes some time to go through the bowels of the legal system. Ogeberfell is relatively new law. The ramifications have not been realized yet, but they WILL be! That's the argument here.


Your retort is... Well it hasn't happened yet! Nananaa boo boo!

 

[Skylar]

Strawman. I'm not arguing against the law, as you already know.

No... What YOU want is to argue something nonsensical.

My argument is remarkably simple: Your characterization of SB377 was complete nonsense. As Alabama still recognizes marriage under SB377, those entering into marriage must still be legally authorized by the State, Alabama still records marriages, and still recognizes them from other States.

And most importantly, nothing in SB377 is 'killing homosexual marriage'. None of the gibbering nonsense of your OP is being enacted or even proposed.

I know you've got you dead to rights.....as you're desperately trying to change the topic. To the SCOTUS ruling, to the rebel flag, to babble about stereotypes.

Anything but SB377. I've literally run you off your argument. See how that works?

 

[Pop23]

Strawman

Incest is illegal. Contracts cannot be entered into for illegal purposes.

Do you never tire of ass kicking you hater dupe.

For the second time....when did I ever say that marriage requires sex?

Just quote me. Or....you can continue to run, desperately trying to change the topic. Either works for me.

When you imply that same sex sibling marriage would be incestuous we can easily see the warped, hater dupe world you live in.

That's not a quote. That's you making up a narrative for me that I've never uttered as a hapless deflection of a cartoon simple request:

Make your case for incest marriage and polygamy.

You speak of nothing else. In any thread. You're simply obsessed. But when asked to present your argument....you flee. Even you treat your claims like garbage.

Why would you expect me to treat you claims any differently?

You keep claiming I promote illegal activities, which I never have, then have the utter audacity to ask for a quote from me?

Par for the course for someone who argues that his fellow citizens be denied the very rights he enjoys. And why does he argue that, because these nice, law abiding citizens were born the way they were.

Next you will want to turn back the clock to when sodamy was illegal and we through gays and blacks into prison for simply exsersizing their God given rights!

Go back to your clan of knuckle draggers and let us progressive Americans take care of things.

I say that you speak of nothing but incest marriage and polygamy. On any thread. They are your sole topic of conversation, your personal obsession.

Make your case for polygamy and incest marriage. As you certainly couldn't quote me ever saying that sex is a requirement of marriage.

I have NEVER promoted illegal activity you knuckle dragging racist bigot.

We get it, you are the only one that deserves equal protection and due process. Those born different than you? Sucks to be them I guess.

Now, do you have a compelling state Intetest to deny same sex siblings the right to enter into a contract or not?