Killing Homosexual Marriage

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Hi all! I just thought that I would drop in with a little reality check-bomb. I have to laugh at the way some people take a simple matter and turn it into a tangled web of inane logical fallacies and outright idiocy. There facts are these:

1.The title of this thread is Killing "Homosexual " Marriage

2. "Homosexual " Marriage is now legal in every state and territory of the nation.

3. Efforts to thwart gay marriages on a state by state basis have been a dismal and even comical failure.

4. Efforts to stop gay marriage nationally, such as with a constitutional amendment are doomed to fail as well

5. Efforts to abolish government recognition of all marriage-either on a state or national level is likewise doomed.

6. The Obergefell ruling extended the right of marriage to same sex couples WHITHIN THE SAME PERAMETERS as enjoyed by opposite sex couples. Nothing more and nothing less no matter how one tries to twist it.

7. Siblings-either same sex or opposite sex were prohibited from marrying before Obergefell and that has not changed. Same for plural marriages.

8. With respect to #7, anyone who wants to have legal sibling or plural marriage is free to pursue it through legislation or a lawsuit. If it goes into litigation, the state who would oppose it will be required articulate a rational basis, or perhaps a compelling government interest- depending on the level of scrutiny afforded by the court- in maintaining bans on those practices.

9. With respect to #8, whether or not anyone here has been able to articulate a compelling government interest-that is acceptable to those who want to make it into a slippery slope fallacy- for maintaining those bans by states........they are still banned. It is useless to speculate on what states argument might be or what a court might do with such a case. In addition, it is NOT incumbent upon those who maintain that those practices were not "grandfathered in" by Obergefell to come up with said compelling reason(s)

You see,...... simple. You can all go home now.

But but but....what about Pop's poor Straw man!

Think of him!

I was.....and Boss. They don't stop. Sounds like desperation to me. I'm out of here again. I'll drop in again but there is only so much that I can take of them.

 

[Pop23]

And you continue to simply dance.

Careful Pop, he's broken out the puppets!

I don't think that's a hand in the puppet though.

 

[Pop23]

Hi all! I just thought that I would drop in with a little reality check-bomb. I have to laugh at the way some people take a simple matter and turn it into a tangled web of inane logical fallacies and outright idiocy. There facts are these:

1.The title of this thread is Killing "Homosexual " Marriage

2. "Homosexual " Marriage is now legal in every state and territory of the nation.

3. Efforts to thwart gay marriages on a state by state basis have been a dismal and even comical failure.

4. Efforts to stop gay marriage nationally, such as with a constitutional amendment are doomed to fail as well

5. Efforts to abolish government recognition of all marriage-either on a state or national level is likewise doomed.

6. The Obergefell ruling extended the right of marriage to same sex couples WHITHIN THE SAME PERAMETERS as enjoyed by opposite sex couples. Nothing more and nothing less no matter how one tries to twist it.

7. Siblings-either same sex or opposite sex were prohibited from marrying before Obergefell and that has not changed. Same for plural marriages.

8. With respect to #7, anyone who wants to have legal sibling or plural marriage is free to pursue it through legislation or a lawsuit. If it goes into litigation, the state who would oppose it will be required articulate a rational basis, or perhaps a compelling government interest- depending on the level of scrutiny afforded by the court- in maintaining bans on those practices.

9. With respect to #8, whether or not anyone here has been able to articulate a compelling government interest-that is acceptable to those who want to make it into a slippery slope fallacy- for maintaining those bans by states........they are still banned. It is useless to speculate on what states argument might be or what a court might do with such a case. In addition, it is NOT incumbent upon those who maintain that those practices were not "grandfathered in" by Obergefell to come up with said compelling reason(s)

You see,...... simple. You can all go home now.

But but but....what about Pop's poor Straw man!

Think of him!

Which isn't a strawman.

You defend by declaring strawman.

I post for equal protection of the law.

You? Bigotted, racist, homophobic hatred.

Deflect to the strawman defense in 3....2.....1

 

[Pop23]

You fought the war YET still need to battle? How bizarre is that?

Can you supply a single Statute that makes sexual contact a requirement of a valid marriage? No?

Then your argument is without merit.

Can you name a single other legal partnership that only allows two as the maximum number of participants? No?

Then your argument is without merit.

You fail twice in one post.

Next?

Poor Pop- still trying to get anyone to dance with his straw man.

Meanwhile- American couples are getting legally married- regardless of the gender of their spouse.

And meanwhile, incestuous marriages and polygamous marriages remain illegal in every state.

Incest is illegal

Have you come up with a compelling state reason to deny same sex sibling marriage?

You can't?

Then you realize you are a bigotted homophobe.

I didn't mention incest.

I mentioned 'incestuous marriage'- which I have provided the definition before- and of which you of course ignore.

Dance on with your straw man.

Yet, an incestuous marriage in Maryland is one that is vaginal penetration between two people closely related.

Interesting that those that do not have a vagina, or marrying someone with a vagina should be able to legally marry in Virginia, then move to another state where they could be arrested.

Hmmmm

Houston, it appears we have a problem.

And still there is no explanation of the compelling state interest?

I didn't mention incest.

I mentioned 'incestuous marriage'- which I have provided the definition before- and of which you of course ignore.

Dance on with your straw man.

Which I showed you had different meanings in different jurisdictions

 

[Syriusly]

Hi all! I just thought that I would drop in with a little reality check-bomb. I have to laugh at the way some people take a simple matter and turn it into a tangled web of inane logical fallacies and outright idiocy. There facts are these:

1.The title of this thread is Killing "Homosexual " Marriage

2. "Homosexual " Marriage is now legal in every state and territory of the nation.

3. Efforts to thwart gay marriages on a state by state basis have been a dismal and even comical failure.

4. Efforts to stop gay marriage nationally, such as with a constitutional amendment are doomed to fail as well

5. Efforts to abolish government recognition of all marriage-either on a state or national level is likewise doomed.

6. The Obergefell ruling extended the right of marriage to same sex couples WHITHIN THE SAME PERAMETERS as enjoyed by opposite sex couples. Nothing more and nothing less no matter how one tries to twist it.

7. Siblings-either same sex or opposite sex were prohibited from marrying before Obergefell and that has not changed. Same for plural marriages.

8. With respect to #7, anyone who wants to have legal sibling or plural marriage is free to pursue it through legislation or a lawsuit. If it goes into litigation, the state who would oppose it will be required articulate a rational basis, or perhaps a compelling government interest- depending on the level of scrutiny afforded by the court- in maintaining bans on those practices.

9. With respect to #8, whether or not anyone here has been able to articulate a compelling government interest-that is acceptable to those who want to make it into a slippery slope fallacy- for maintaining those bans by states........they are still banned. It is useless to speculate on what states argument might be or what a court might do with such a case. In addition, it is NOT incumbent upon those who maintain that those practices were not "grandfathered in" by Obergefell to come up with said compelling reason(s)

You see,...... simple. You can all go home now.

But but but....what about Pop's poor Straw man!

Think of him!

Which isn't a strawman.

You defend by declaring strawman.

I post for equal protection of the law.
1

You post in angst because you are pissed off that Americans who are gay can get married.

You neither believe in equal protection of the law- nor do you want it.

You want the groups you do not approve of discriminated against.

 

[Syriusly]

Poor Pop- still trying to get anyone to dance with his straw man.

Meanwhile- American couples are getting legally married- regardless of the gender of their spouse.

And meanwhile, incestuous marriages and polygamous marriages remain illegal in every state.

Incest is illegal

Have you come up with a compelling state reason to deny same sex sibling marriage?

You can't?

Then you realize you are a bigotted homophobe.

I didn't mention incest.

I mentioned 'incestuous marriage'- which I have provided the definition before- and of which you of course ignore.

Dance on with your straw man.

Yet, an incestuous marriage in Maryland is one that is vaginal penetration between two people closely related.

Interesting that those that do not have a vagina, or marrying someone with a vagina should be able to legally marry in Virginia, then move to another state where they could be arrested.

Hmmmm

Houston, it appears we have a problem.

And still there is no explanation of the compelling state interest?

I didn't mention incest.

I mentioned 'incestuous marriage'- which I have provided the definition before- and of which you of course ignore.

Dance on with your straw man.

Which I showed you had different meanings in different jurisdictions

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.

I didn't mention incest.

I mentioned 'incestuous marriage'- which I have provided the definition before- and of which you of course ignore.

Dance on with your straw man

 

[Pop23]

Hi all! I just thought that I would drop in with a little reality check-bomb. I have to laugh at the way some people take a simple matter and turn it into a tangled web of inane logical fallacies and outright idiocy. There facts are these:

1.The title of this thread is Killing "Homosexual " Marriage

2. "Homosexual " Marriage is now legal in every state and territory of the nation.

3. Efforts to thwart gay marriages on a state by state basis have been a dismal and even comical failure.

4. Efforts to stop gay marriage nationally, such as with a constitutional amendment are doomed to fail as well

5. Efforts to abolish government recognition of all marriage-either on a state or national level is likewise doomed.

6. The Obergefell ruling extended the right of marriage to same sex couples WHITHIN THE SAME PERAMETERS as enjoyed by opposite sex couples. Nothing more and nothing less no matter how one tries to twist it.

7. Siblings-either same sex or opposite sex were prohibited from marrying before Obergefell and that has not changed. Same for plural marriages.

8. With respect to #7, anyone who wants to have legal sibling or plural marriage is free to pursue it through legislation or a lawsuit. If it goes into litigation, the state who would oppose it will be required articulate a rational basis, or perhaps a compelling government interest- depending on the level of scrutiny afforded by the court- in maintaining bans on those practices.

9. With respect to #8, whether or not anyone here has been able to articulate a compelling government interest-that is acceptable to those who want to make it into a slippery slope fallacy- for maintaining those bans by states........they are still banned. It is useless to speculate on what states argument might be or what a court might do with such a case. In addition, it is NOT incumbent upon those who maintain that those practices were not "grandfathered in" by Obergefell to come up with said compelling reason(s)

You see,...... simple. You can all go home now.

But but but....what about Pop's poor Straw man!

Think of him!

Which isn't a strawman.

You defend by declaring strawman.

I post for equal protection of the law.
1

You post in angst because you are pissed off that Americans who are gay can get married.

You neither believe in equal protection of the law- nor do you want it.

You want the groups you do not approve of discriminated against.

Yet I post that using the equal application of the law as the basis of my argument, that a relationship I oppose (same sex siblings) should have a right to marry.

And I ask again, what is the compelling state interest in denial of these rights?

Come up with answer, using the same legal rule that MUST be applied to all citizens that have this declared constitutional right.

Because you don't like it has already failed judicial muster

Because it goes against nature or tradition failed as well

What is it then?

 

[Pop23]

Incest is illegal

Have you come up with a compelling state reason to deny same sex sibling marriage?

You can't?

Then you realize you are a bigotted homophobe.

I didn't mention incest.

I mentioned 'incestuous marriage'- which I have provided the definition before- and of which you of course ignore.

Dance on with your straw man.

Yet, an incestuous marriage in Maryland is one that is vaginal penetration between two people closely related.

Interesting that those that do not have a vagina, or marrying someone with a vagina should be able to legally marry in Virginia, then move to another state where they could be arrested.

Hmmmm

Houston, it appears we have a problem.

And still there is no explanation of the compelling state interest?

I didn't mention incest.

I mentioned 'incestuous marriage'- which I have provided the definition before- and of which you of course ignore.

Dance on with your straw man.

Which I showed you had different meanings in different jurisdictions

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.

I didn't mention incest.

I mentioned 'incestuous marriage'- which I have provided the definition before- and of which you of course ignore.

Dance on with your straw man

The dictionary does not rule state legislatures and a dictionary definition is not a compelling state interest to deny individual rights.

A few years ago marriage had a distinctive different dictionary definition as (prior to same sex), and 100 years ago it would have stated it was the Union of opposite genders of the same race.

 

[Faun]

So explain it then ... how did it change to allow two brothers to marry when a brother couldn't marry his sister.....

I think I have before, but for you I will do it once again.

Marriage was between a man and woman, not too closely related ( for a reason). This is not at all ambiguous to folks with a brain. Sisters couldn't marry brothers and brothers couldn't marry. Not even in Maryland.

Now rest your little traditional, right wing nut job head.

Let it sink in.

You make no sense no matter how many times you try. A brother and a sister couldn't marry when marriage was limited to being between a man and a woman; but you're so fucked in the head, you've convinced yourself that two brothers can soon marry because marriage now allows two men to marry.

Yup

And you have no Compelling State Interest to deny

See, that wasn't so gosh darned hard, was it

Sure was easy, you still can't explain why a gay brother and his lesbian sister couldn't marry but now two brothers will when the compelling interest is the same for both

Because marriage was only between a man and a woman. Don't you read the papers Faun? That changed with Obergfell.

Please try to keep up.

Oh, that qualification that the USSC got rid of, met equal protection and was not arbitrary.

Glad I could put your mind at rest.

That doesn't explain why a gay man couldn't marry his lesbian sister. One is a man and the other a woman, which as you point out, we're allowed to marry.

This is why you have no argument. You're just too stupid to know it.

 

[Faun]

Boss and Pop have to make an argument that the state does not have a compelling argument to ban polygamy or sib marriage.

That is their affirmation, so they have to make the case, and they have failed titanically so far.

You fought the war YET still need to battle? How bizarre is that? Can you supply a single Statute that makes sexual contact a requirement of a valid marriage? No? Then your argument is without merit. Can you name a single other legal partnership that only allows two as the maximum number of participants? No? Then your argument is without merit. You fail twice in one post. Next?

You fail in your argument because the status quo does not have to justify itself, because it is legal.

You have to show that the government has no compelling argument to ban polygamy and sib marriage.

You have not done that.

Of course he hasn't. He can't. So he keeps running in circles hoping no one will notice.

No, You have to supply a Compelling State Interest to deny its citizens their individual rights.

You can't? Dear lord, Ya mean that there are none.

Yikes

Of course there are compelling interests. Same ones which prevented gay men from marrying their lesbian sisters.

 

[Faun]

So explain it then ... how did it change to allow two brothers to marry when a brother couldn't marry his sister.....

Which word are you having trouble with, same or sex?

What the fuck is wrong with you? How do you not understand a brother and sister are not the same gender? I take you can't answer the question because you really do have no idea what you're talking about.

A brother and sister aren't the same gender but a brother and brother are. Why can't they have same-gender marriage? Why do you advocate discrimination and denial of their rights? Pop has been asking you this for weeks. I've seen it in several threads over the course of the past month. As of yet, I have not seen a sufficient answer.

The absolute best any of you can come up with is, "Duh, because it's not legalz!" That positively brilliant answer is followed closely by the ever-logical, "If you don't know then don't ask me to explain it to you!" Any attempt to TRY and explain the state's "compelling interests" sounds pretty much identical to the moral arguments made against gay marriage.

Since you can't really give a sufficient answer to Pop's question, the solution is simple... Pop has to be marginalized and his argument summarily dismissed. Which, I personally think, reveals a much more dangerous and insidious threat to free society than gay marriage. You people are one step removed from lining folks up in front of an open ditch and putting bullets in their head as "political dissidents."

Asked and answered.

 

[Pop23]

I think I have before, but for you I will do it once again.

Marriage was between a man and woman, not too closely related ( for a reason). This is not at all ambiguous to folks with a brain. Sisters couldn't marry brothers and brothers couldn't marry. Not even in Maryland.

Now rest your little traditional, right wing nut job head.

Let it sink in.

You make no sense no matter how many times you try. A brother and a sister couldn't marry when marriage was limited to being between a man and a woman; but you're so fucked in the head, you've convinced yourself that two brothers can soon marry because marriage now allows two men to marry.

Yup

And you have no Compelling State Interest to deny

See, that wasn't so gosh darned hard, was it

Sure was easy, you still can't explain why a gay brother and his lesbian sister couldn't marry but now two brothers will when the compelling interest is the same for both

Because marriage was only between a man and a woman. Don't you read the papers Faun? That changed with Obergfell.

Please try to keep up.

Oh, that qualification that the USSC got rid of, met equal protection and was not arbitrary.

Glad I could put your mind at rest.

That doesn't explain why a gay man couldn't marry his lesbian sister. One is a man and the other a woman, which as you point out, we're allowed to marry.

This is why you have no argument. You're just too stupid to know it.

Because one was male and the second female, prohibited to marry because that prohibition was across the board, equally applied

The question is why? So that the state did not licence incestuous relationships that could have a short term impact on an innocent child or a long term negative impact on society.

When responding you must remember that the government has the duty to protect the innocent child and long term impacts on society.

We equally applied the law to all that were allowed to marry because ALL ELIGIBLE to marry could cause both short term and long term harm.

Now that the qualification that the partners be if opposite gender, and a large segment of the eligible couplings could not cause this harm:

What is the States Compelling Interest in denial of these CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, from them?

 

[Pop23]

Boss and Pop have to make an argument that the state does not have a compelling argument to ban polygamy or sib marriage.

That is their affirmation, so they have to make the case, and they have failed titanically so far.

You fought the war YET still need to battle? How bizarre is that? Can you supply a single Statute that makes sexual contact a requirement of a valid marriage? No? Then your argument is without merit. Can you name a single other legal partnership that only allows two as the maximum number of participants? No? Then your argument is without merit. You fail twice in one post. Next?

You fail in your argument because the status quo does not have to justify itself, because it is legal.

You have to show that the government has no compelling argument to ban polygamy and sib marriage.

You have not done that.

Of course he hasn't. He can't. So he keeps running in circles hoping no one will notice.

No, You have to supply a Compelling State Interest to deny its citizens their individual rights.

You can't? Dear lord, Ya mean that there are none.

Yikes

Of course there are compelling interests. Same ones which prevented gay men from marrying their lesbian sisters.

Then you ought to be able to name them and how they apply to:

1. Opposite sex siblings

2. Two male siblings

3. Two female siblings.

 

[Faun]

It is useless to speculate on what states argument might be or what a court might do with such a case. In addition, it is NOT incumbent upon those who maintain that those practices were not "grandfathered in" by Obergefell to come up with said compelling reason(s)

You see,...... simple. You can all go home now.

There is no "grandfathered in" argument that I have seen. The only relevant argument is whether the 14th Amendment applies equally or not. Speculation IS useless, that's why we have to look at the Constitution and standing law to objectively rationalize.

What will be incumbent upon the state when the cases arise is a valid argument for "compelling interest" which no longer has to be rooted in "traditional values" because we've decided this through a 5-4 SCOTUS ruling and it's the law of the land now.

You'll be happy to know the 14th Amendment is alive and well.

No siblings can marry no matter what their gender is. All siblings are treated equal under the laws of marriage.

 

[Pop23]

Boss and Pop have to make an argument that the state does not have a compelling argument to ban polygamy or sib marriage.

That is their affirmation, so they have to make the case, and they have failed titanically so far.

You fought the war YET still need to battle? How bizarre is that? Can you supply a single Statute that makes sexual contact a requirement of a valid marriage? No? Then your argument is without merit. Can you name a single other legal partnership that only allows two as the maximum number of participants? No? Then your argument is without merit. You fail twice in one post. Next?

You fail in your argument because the status quo does not have to justify itself, because it is legal.

You have to show that the government has no compelling argument to ban polygamy and sib marriage.

You have not done that.

Of course he hasn't. He can't. So he keeps running in circles hoping no one will notice.

No, You have to supply a Compelling State Interest to deny its citizens their individual rights.

You can't? Dear lord, Ya mean that there are none.

Yikes

Of course there are compelling interests. Same ones which prevented gay men from marrying their lesbian sisters.

But you're to stupid to know what they are?

Is that it?

We've already discovered that most arguing here didn't even know there were differing levels and rules governing compelling state interest.

Good lord, without that, how can you possibly participate.

 

[Montrovant]

So explain it then ... how did it change to allow two brothers to marry when a brother couldn't marry his sister.....

Which word are you having trouble with, same or sex?

What the fuck is wrong with you? How do you not understand a brother and sister are not the same gender? I take you can't answer the question because you really do have no idea what you're talking about.

A brother and sister aren't the same gender but a brother and brother are. Why can't they have same-gender marriage? Why do you advocate discrimination and denial of their rights? Pop has been asking you this for weeks. I've seen it in several threads over the course of the past month. As of yet, I have not seen a sufficient answer.

The absolute best any of you can come up with is, "Duh, because it's not legalz!" That positively brilliant answer is followed closely by the ever-logical, "If you don't know then don't ask me to explain it to you!" Any attempt to TRY and explain the state's "compelling interests" sounds pretty much identical to the moral arguments made against gay marriage.

Since you can't really give a sufficient answer to Pop's question, the solution is simple... Pop has to be marginalized and his argument summarily dismissed. Which, I personally think, reveals a much more dangerous and insidious threat to free society than gay marriage. You people are one step removed from lining folks up in front of an open ditch and putting bullets in their head as "political dissidents."

Let me ask this : what was the legal reason for denying marriages to immediate family members prior to Obergefell? Was it just tradition? Potential genetic abnormalities? Are those the only two compelling state interests for preventing consanguineous marriage?

 

[Pop23]

It is useless to speculate on what states argument might be or what a court might do with such a case. In addition, it is NOT incumbent upon those who maintain that those practices were not "grandfathered in" by Obergefell to come up with said compelling reason(s)

You see,...... simple. You can all go home now.

There is no "grandfathered in" argument that I have seen. The only relevant argument is whether the 14th Amendment applies equally or not. Speculation IS useless, that's why we have to look at the Constitution and standing law to objectively rationalize.

What will be incumbent upon the state when the cases arise is a valid argument for "compelling interest" which no longer has to be rooted in "traditional values" because we've decided this through a 5-4 SCOTUS ruling and it's the law of the land now.

You'll be happy to know the 14th Amendment is alive and well.

No siblings can marry no matter what their gender is. All siblings are treated equal under the laws of marriage.

What a looney.

You realize that's the same argument used to keep blacks from marrying whites, right?

Racist.

 

[Pop23]

So explain it then ... how did it change to allow two brothers to marry when a brother couldn't marry his sister.....

Which word are you having trouble with, same or sex?

What the fuck is wrong with you? How do you not understand a brother and sister are not the same gender? I take you can't answer the question because you really do have no idea what you're talking about.

A brother and sister aren't the same gender but a brother and brother are. Why can't they have same-gender marriage? Why do you advocate discrimination and denial of their rights? Pop has been asking you this for weeks. I've seen it in several threads over the course of the past month. As of yet, I have not seen a sufficient answer.

The absolute best any of you can come up with is, "Duh, because it's not legalz!" That positively brilliant answer is followed closely by the ever-logical, "If you don't know then don't ask me to explain it to you!" Any attempt to TRY and explain the state's "compelling interests" sounds pretty much identical to the moral arguments made against gay marriage.

Since you can't really give a sufficient answer to Pop's question, the solution is simple... Pop has to be marginalized and his argument summarily dismissed. Which, I personally think, reveals a much more dangerous and insidious threat to free society than gay marriage. You people are one step removed from lining folks up in front of an open ditch and putting bullets in their head as "political dissidents."

Let me ask this : what was the legal reason for denying marriages to immediate family members prior to Obergefell? Was it just tradition? Potential genetic abnormalities? Are those the only two compelling state interests for preventing consanguineous marriage?

Why ask, list em if you think there are others.

 

[Faun]

You make no sense no matter how many times you try. A brother and a sister couldn't marry when marriage was limited to being between a man and a woman; but you're so fucked in the head, you've convinced yourself that two brothers can soon marry because marriage now allows two men to marry.

Yup

And you have no Compelling State Interest to deny

See, that wasn't so gosh darned hard, was it

Sure was easy, you still can't explain why a gay brother and his lesbian sister couldn't marry but now two brothers will when the compelling interest is the same for both

Because marriage was only between a man and a woman. Don't you read the papers Faun? That changed with Obergfell.

Please try to keep up.

Oh, that qualification that the USSC got rid of, met equal protection and was not arbitrary.

Glad I could put your mind at rest.

That doesn't explain why a gay man couldn't marry his lesbian sister. One is a man and the other a woman, which as you point out, we're allowed to marry.

This is why you have no argument. You're just too stupid to know it.

Because one was male and the second female, prohibited to marry because that prohibition was across the board, equally applied

The question is why? So that the state did not licence incestuous relationships that could have a short term impact on an innocent child or a long term negative impact on society.

When responding you must remember that the government has the duty to protect the innocent child and long term impacts on society.

We equally applied the law to all that were allowed to marry because ALL ELIGIBLE to marry could cause both short term and long term harm.

Now that the qualification that the partners be if opposite gender, and a large segment of the eligible couplings could not cause this harm:

What is the States Compelling Interest in denial of these CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, from them?

What prohibition? According to your idiocy, there was none. That's why your argument collapses under the weight of its own stupidity. Do you understand now?

 

[Montrovant]

You make no sense no matter how many times you try. A brother and a sister couldn't marry when marriage was limited to being between a man and a woman; but you're so fucked in the head, you've convinced yourself that two brothers can soon marry because marriage now allows two men to marry.

Yup

And you have no Compelling State Interest to deny

See, that wasn't so gosh darned hard, was it

Sure was easy, you still can't explain why a gay brother and his lesbian sister couldn't marry but now two brothers will when the compelling interest is the same for both

Because marriage was only between a man and a woman. Don't you read the papers Faun? That changed with Obergfell.

Please try to keep up.

Oh, that qualification that the USSC got rid of, met equal protection and was not arbitrary.

Glad I could put your mind at rest.

That doesn't explain why a gay man couldn't marry his lesbian sister. One is a man and the other a woman, which as you point out, we're allowed to marry.

This is why you have no argument. You're just too stupid to know it.

Because one was male and the second female, prohibited to marry because that prohibition was across the board, equally applied

The question is why? So that the state did not licence incestuous relationships that could have a short term impact on an innocent child or a long term negative impact on society.

When responding you must remember that the government has the duty to protect the innocent child and long term impacts on society.

We equally applied the law to all that were allowed to marry because ALL ELIGIBLE to marry could cause both short term and long term harm.

Now that the qualification that the partners be if opposite gender, and a large segment of the eligible couplings could not cause this harm:

What is the States Compelling Interest in denial of these CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, from them?

What, specifically, are the short term and long term impacts you are talking about? That is important in determining whether either of those impacts applies to same sex consanguineous couples (assuming those two things are the only reasons for states preventing such marriages in the first place).