Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Pop23]

Yet the State expresses no such concern for exploitation or abuse when the same two enter into an LLC or an S-Corp?

The bar for denial of a citizens right to marry is so low that a judge can justify the taking of their rights because something possibly could happen without due process???

So, because accidents might happen, causing societal harm, no one can drive?

Is that this strict scrutiny test?

Says you- citing you.

As you ignore even a Judge saying otherwise in her ruling.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net


You just won't accept any reason than the one you have decided is the only compelling state interest.
Since you won't accept what a Judge says- why do you keep asking us?

You can't deny CONSTITUTIONAL rights from one group because something might happen, when you allow the very same thing for the other group without disqualifying both.

You keep saying that- quoting yourself- citing yourself.

Me?

I provide citations that refute your claims- like this citation from a legal expert:

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on same sex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

Ok, so in your pathetic mind that is compelling state interest.

"raise concerns"

Nuff said, we shall all bow to the bigots.

Virginia "raised concern" because if mixing the races.

Not really compelling is it?

You keep saying that- quoting yourself- citing yourself.

Me?

I provide citations that refute your claims- like this citation from a legal expert:

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on same sex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

^^^^ bigot still wants the races separate because of "raised concerns"

 

[Syriusly]

MASSACHUSETTS HIGH COURT OPENS DOOR TO GAY AND INCESTUOUS MARRIAGES - Catholic League

Pop is just parroting the opinion of the Catholic League- 12 years ago- almost exactly. I am surprised he is not openly quoting them- except of course it would show how stupid he is- since 12 years later- still no 'incestuous marriages' in Massachusetts.


MASSACHUSETTS HIGH COURT OPENS DOOR TO GAY AND INCESTUOUS MARRIAGES
November 18, 2003 by Bill
Filed under Latest News Releases
2003 - November Releases

By a vote of 4-3, the Massachusetts Supreme Court voted today to strike down the state’s ban on homosexual marriage. Though the court said homosexuals were entitled to marry, it stopped short of allowing them to obtain a license to do so. Instead, it gave the state legislature 180 days to find a solution.


Commenting on this development is Catholic League president William Donohue:


“According to Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, ‘The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support.’ In making this ruling, Judge Marshall has, however unwittingly, sanctioned marriage between two brothers. Whether it would extend to an incestuous marriage between heterosexuals—brother and sister, mother-son, father-daughter, is uncertain—but clearly two sisters would be covered by her logic. What it comes down to is this: if love is the sine qua non of marriage, then all incestuous relationships qualify. But if the ruling applies only to homosexual couples who challenge the state’s ban, then only brother-brother, sister-sister, marriages pass muster.


“Polygamists have every right to sue. After all, who is Judge Marshall to limit marriage to two people? Her ruling explicitly discriminates against Tom, Dick and Harry marrying. In effect, she is saying that one of them must be left out—Tom can marry Dick, but not Dick and Harry? But why not be inclusive? This is hardly the kind of ruling that respects real diversity.

“If there is one saving grace in this ruling, it is the decision to force state legislators to do what they hate to do—make a decision about an issue they would prefer judges to make for them.

Yup...sounds like the same moronic equine excrement being bandied about here. Shameless fear mongering. This ruling did no such thing, anymore than Obergefell and all the others in between.

Lol, time will tell.

And when I'm proven correct?

I'm sure you're going to say. Shit, that guy nailed it!

You are still waiting to be proven right that lifting the ban on mixed race marriages would lead to incestuous marriages.

You are still waiting to be proven right that lifting the ban on gay marriages in Massachusetts will lead to incestuous marriages.

On your death bed you will still be waiting to be proven right- and still predicting nonsense.

 

[Syriusly]

Says you- citing you.

As you ignore even a Judge saying otherwise in her ruling.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net


You just won't accept any reason than the one you have decided is the only compelling state interest.
Since you won't accept what a Judge says- why do you keep asking us?

You can't deny CONSTITUTIONAL rights from one group because something might happen, when you allow the very same thing for the other group without disqualifying both.

You keep saying that- quoting yourself- citing yourself.

Me?

I provide citations that refute your claims- like this citation from a legal expert:

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on same sex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

Ok, so in your pathetic mind that is compelling state interest.

"raise concerns"

Nuff said, we shall all bow to the bigots.

Virginia "raised concern" because if mixing the races.

Not really compelling is it?

You keep saying that- quoting yourself- citing yourself.

Me?

I provide citations that refute your claims- like this citation from a legal expert:

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on same sex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

^^^^ bigot still wants the races separate because of "raised concerns"

You keep saying that- quoting yourself- citing yourself.

Me?

I provide citations that refute your claims- like this citation from a legal expert:

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on same sex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

 

[Pop23]

You can't deny CONSTITUTIONAL rights from one group because something might happen, when you allow the very same thing for the other group without disqualifying both.

You keep saying that- quoting yourself- citing yourself.

Me?

I provide citations that refute your claims- like this citation from a legal expert:

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on same sex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

Ok, so in your pathetic mind that is compelling state interest.

"raise concerns"

Nuff said, we shall all bow to the bigots.

Virginia "raised concern" because if mixing the races.

Not really compelling is it?

You keep saying that- quoting yourself- citing yourself.

Me?

I provide citations that refute your claims- like this citation from a legal expert:

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on same sex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

^^^^ bigot still wants the races separate because of "raised concerns"

You keep saying that- quoting yourself- citing yourself.

Me?

I provide citations that refute your claims- like this citation from a legal expert:

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on same sex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

^^^^ says the racist that claimes simply raising a concern that mixing races would cause damage is a compelling state interest b

 

[Syriusly]

You keep saying that- quoting yourself- citing yourself.

Me?

I provide citations that refute your claims- like this citation from a legal expert:

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on same sex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

Ok, so in your pathetic mind that is compelling state interest.

"raise concerns"

Nuff said, we shall all bow to the bigots.

Virginia "raised concern" because if mixing the races.

Not really compelling is it?

You keep saying that- quoting yourself- citing yourself.

Me?

I provide citations that refute your claims- like this citation from a legal expert:

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on same sex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

^^^^ bigot still wants the races separate because of "raised concerns"

You keep saying that- quoting yourself- citing yourself.

Me?

I provide citations that refute your claims- like this citation from a legal expert:

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on same sex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

^^^^ says the racist that claimes simply raising a concern that mixing races would cause damage is a compelling state interest b

When did I say that- feel free to quote me.

Meanwhile- as with everything you post

You keep saying that- quoting yourself- citing yourself.

Me?

I provide citations that refute your claims- like this citation from a legal expert:

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on same sex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Says you- citing you.

As you ignore even a Judge saying otherwise in her ruling.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net


You just won't accept any reason than the one you have decided is the only compelling state interest.
Since you won't accept what a Judge says- why do you keep asking us?

You can't deny CONSTITUTIONAL rights from one group because something might happen, when you allow the very same thing for the other group without disqualifying both.

You keep saying that- quoting yourself- citing yourself.

Me?

I provide citations that refute your claims- like this citation from a legal expert:

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on same sex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

Ok, so in your pathetic mind that is compelling state interest.

"raise concerns"

Nuff said, we shall all bow to the bigots.

Virginia "raised concern" because if mixing the races.

Not really compelling is it?

You keep saying that- quoting yourself- citing yourself.

Me?

I provide citations that refute your claims- like this citation from a legal expert:

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on same sex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

^^^^ bigot still wants the races separate because of "raised concerns"

Those were manufactured and bogus concerns. Bigots also still want to prevent same sex marriage because of bogus and manufactured concerns. They are no better than the racial bigots.

 

[Syriusly]

You can't deny CONSTITUTIONAL rights from one group because something might happen, when you allow the very same thing for the other group without disqualifying both.

You keep saying that- quoting yourself- citing yourself.

Me?

I provide citations that refute your claims- like this citation from a legal expert:

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on same sex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

Ok, so in your pathetic mind that is compelling state interest.

"raise concerns"

Nuff said, we shall all bow to the bigots.

Virginia "raised concern" because if mixing the races.

Not really compelling is it?

You keep saying that- quoting yourself- citing yourself.

Me?

I provide citations that refute your claims- like this citation from a legal expert:

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on same sex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

^^^^ bigot still wants the races separate because of "raised concerns"

Those were manufactured and bogus concerns. Bigot also still want to prevent same sex marriage because of bogus and manufactured concerns. They are no better than the racial bigots.

Pop wants to call me a bigot for telling him how a judge- who was ruling on gay marriage- pointed out that gay marriage is nothing like incestuous marriage- and the reasons why.

Poor Pop- no one wants to dance with his Straw Man.

 

[Pop23]

You can't deny CONSTITUTIONAL rights from one group because something might happen, when you allow the very same thing for the other group without disqualifying both.

You keep saying that- quoting yourself- citing yourself.

Me?

I provide citations that refute your claims- like this citation from a legal expert:

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on same sex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

Ok, so in your pathetic mind that is compelling state interest.

"raise concerns"

Nuff said, we shall all bow to the bigots.

Virginia "raised concern" because if mixing the races.

Not really compelling is it?

You keep saying that- quoting yourself- citing yourself.

Me?

I provide citations that refute your claims- like this citation from a legal expert:

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on same sex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

^^^^ bigot still wants the races separate because of "raised concerns"

Those were manufactured and bogus concerns. Bigots also still want to prevent same sex marriage because of bogus and manufactured concerns. They are no better than the racial bigots.

Sure "they" were, and "yours" aren't.

 

[Pop23]

You keep saying that- quoting yourself- citing yourself.

Me?

I provide citations that refute your claims- like this citation from a legal expert:

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on same sex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

Ok, so in your pathetic mind that is compelling state interest.

"raise concerns"

Nuff said, we shall all bow to the bigots.

Virginia "raised concern" because if mixing the races.

Not really compelling is it?

You keep saying that- quoting yourself- citing yourself.

Me?

I provide citations that refute your claims- like this citation from a legal expert:

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on same sex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

^^^^ bigot still wants the races separate because of "raised concerns"

Those were manufactured and bogus concerns. Bigot also still want to prevent same sex marriage because of bogus and manufactured concerns. They are no better than the racial bigots.

Pop wants to call me a bigot for telling him how a judge- who was ruling on gay marriage- pointed out that gay marriage is nothing like incestuous marriage- and the reasons why.

Poor Pop- no one wants to dance with his Straw Man.

Strawman, the question was not what a judge thought, but what the compelling state interest that judge would have to deny a Constitutional Right, applying the strict scrutiny rule, to a good, law abiding, tax paying citizen.

She expressed a very low bar, that being that a possibility exists. Not very strictly scrutinized now is it, and it is exactly the same argument that segregationists used to deny blacks their civil rights.

 

[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?

Because of the potential risk of birth defect in close relation offspring. Believe it or not, this has been challenged in state law through the years. Sibling marriage is not permitted because of this potential risk... but "marriage" has now changed and is no longer defined as a male-female union, so the entire issue of procreation becomes moot.

Also, "traditional values" are no longer applicable. Your "fears it may lead to" arguments are invalidated by an established constitutional right of the individual now. Obergefell did not happen in a vacuum.

It seems that if birth defects were the only reason, infertile consanguineous couples might have already been given leave to marry. If cases have been ruled on in the past and defects are the only reason ever given, the state wouldn't have a precedent to use to prevent same sex consanguineous couples, at least.

Obergefell did not establish marriage as a constitutional right. That was done through multiple previous USSC rulings.

That something is not considered a strong enough argument in one instance does not mean the same will be true in others. The potential harm from consanguineous marriages, particularly regarding parents and children, will almost certainly be seen as stronger than any potential harm from same sex marriages, especially considering the reason for the potential harm is different.

 

[Montrovant]

And other than inbreeding, all other failed the compelling state interest, strict scrutiny test.

According to you- quoting you.

As you ignore even a Judge saying otherwise in her ruling.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net


You just won't accept any reason than the one you have decided is the only compelling state interest.
Since you won't accept what a Judge says- why do you keep asking us?

Other than to dance with your straw man.

Good Lord! You REALLY ARE A MORON!

In your quote , where is the legal reasoning?

Could you be any more idiotic?

And other than inbreeding, all other failed the compelling state interest, strict scrutiny test.

According to you- quoting you.

As you ignore even a Judge saying otherwise in her ruling.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net


You just won't accept any reason than the one you have decided is the only compelling state interest.
Since you won't accept what a Judge says- why do you keep asking us?

Yet the State expresses no such concern for exploitation or abuse when the same two enter into an LLC or an S-Corp?

The bar for denial of a citizens right to marry is so low that a judge can justify the taking of their rights because something possibly could happen without due process???

So, because accidents might happen, causing societal harm, no one can drive?

Is that this strict scrutiny test?

Says you- citing you.

As you ignore even a Judge saying otherwise in her ruling.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net


You just won't accept any reason than the one you have decided is the only compelling state interest.
Since you won't accept what a Judge says- why do you keep asking us?

Ok Syriously:

I've pointed this out before.

A major motion picture and a huge best seller called 50 Shades of Gray featured a couple who's relationship was exploitive and abussive.

NOTHING PROHIBITED THEM FROM LEGAL MARRIAGE.

Get it.

You can't deny CONSTITUTIONAL rights from one group because something might happen, when you allow the very same thing for the other group without disqualifying both.

It isn't a question of whether individual relationships are exploitive and abusive, it's about the danger inherent in a type of relationship being exploitive and abusive.

 

[Boss]

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?

Because of the potential risk of birth defect in close relation offspring. Believe it or not, this has been challenged in state law through the years. Sibling marriage is not permitted because of this potential risk... but "marriage" has now changed and is no longer defined as a male-female union, so the entire issue of procreation becomes moot.

Also, "traditional values" are no longer applicable. Your "fears it may lead to" arguments are invalidated by an established constitutional right of the individual now. Obergefell did not happen in a vacuum.

The entire issue of procreation was out the window long before Obergefell. So were traditional values as an argument. As I have point out, sibling marriage- same sex or not - entails different issue and consequences for society than SSM. and therefore-states may in fact have valid reasons to deny it. Take it to court bubba.

entails different issue and consequences for society

...And yet, he mentions nothing.

Allow me to channel my inner you.... There are no consequences other than people are given the right to marry the one they love! It will have no effect on your homo marriage! This is about equal protection under the law and if you need it explained, go read Obergefell v. Hodges!

 

[Syriusly]

Ok, so in your pathetic mind that is compelling state interest.

"raise concerns"

Nuff said, we shall all bow to the bigots.

Virginia "raised concern" because if mixing the races.

Not really compelling is it?

You keep saying that- quoting yourself- citing yourself.

Me?

I provide citations that refute your claims- like this citation from a legal expert:

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on same sex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

^^^^ bigot still wants the races separate because of "raised concerns"

Those were manufactured and bogus concerns. Bigot also still want to prevent same sex marriage because of bogus and manufactured concerns. They are no better than the racial bigots.

Pop wants to call me a bigot for telling him how a judge- who was ruling on gay marriage- pointed out that gay marriage is nothing like incestuous marriage- and the reasons why.

Poor Pop- no one wants to dance with his Straw Man.

Strawman, the question was not what a judge thought, but what the compelling state interest that judge would have to deny a Constitutional Right, applying the strict scrutiny rule, to a good, law abiding, tax paying citizen.

She expressed a very low bar, that being that a possibility exists. Not very strictly scrutinized now is it, and it is exactly the same argument that segregationists used to deny blacks their civil rights.

Again- that is your opinion- again- citing you.

You asked what compelling argument a State could make- Judge Crabb indicated exactly not only how same gender marriage is not the same as incestuous marriage- Judge Crabb told the State what she would consider to be compelling arguments against incestuous marriage.

You don't have to convince me you have the right to marry your sibling- you need to convince a court.
Go for it- so far I have provided a judge that says your argument doesn't cut it- but you can file your test case tomorrow if you want.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Because of the potential risk of birth defect in close relation offspring. Believe it or not, this has been challenged in state law through the years. Sibling marriage is not permitted because of this potential risk... but "marriage" has now changed and is no longer defined as a male-female union, so the entire issue of procreation becomes moot.

Also, "traditional values" are no longer applicable. Your "fears it may lead to" arguments are invalidated by an established constitutional right of the individual now. Obergefell did not happen in a vacuum.

The entire issue of procreation was out the window long before Obergefell. So were traditional values as an argument. As I have point out, sibling marriage- same sex or not - entails different issue and consequences for society than SSM. and therefore-states may in fact have valid reasons to deny it. Take it to court bubba.

entails different issue and consequences for society

...And yet, he mentions nothing.

Allow me to channel my inner you.... There are no consequences other than people are given the right to marry the one they love! It will have no effect on your homo marriage! This is about equal protection under the law and if you need it explained, go read Obergefell v. Hodges!

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

Judge Crabb.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Because of the potential risk of birth defect in close relation offspring. Believe it or not, this has been challenged in state law through the years. Sibling marriage is not permitted because of this potential risk... but "marriage" has now changed and is no longer defined as a male-female union, so the entire issue of procreation becomes moot.

Also, "traditional values" are no longer applicable. Your "fears it may lead to" arguments are invalidated by an established constitutional right of the individual now. Obergefell did not happen in a vacuum.

It seems that if birth defects were the only reason, infertile consanguineous couples might have already been given leave to marry. If cases have been ruled on in the past and defects are the only reason ever given, the state wouldn't have a precedent to use to prevent same sex consanguineous couples, at least.

Obergefell did not establish marriage as a constitutional right. That was done through multiple previous USSC rulings.

That something is not considered a strong enough argument in one instance does not mean the same will be true in others. The potential harm from consanguineous marriages, particularly regarding parents and children, will almost certainly be seen as stronger than any potential harm from same sex marriages, especially considering the reason for the potential harm is different.

Wisconsin allows First Cousins to marry- if they prove that they are not fertile.
Wisconsin does not allow siblings to marry- regardless of infertility.

Clearly to any rational person- State laws banning incestuous marriage are not based solely on the potential for procreation- otherwise Wisconsin would allow siblings to marry just like First Cousins.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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?

Because of the potential risk of birth defect in close relation offspring. Believe it or not, this has been challenged in state law through the years. Sibling marriage is not permitted because of this potential risk... but "marriage" has now changed and is no longer defined as a male-female union, so the entire issue of procreation becomes moot.

Also, "traditional values" are no longer applicable. Your "fears it may lead to" arguments are invalidated by an established constitutional right of the individual now. Obergefell did not happen in a vacuum.

The entire issue of procreation was out the window long before Obergefell. So were traditional values as an argument. As I have point out, sibling marriage- same sex or not - entails different issue and consequences for society than SSM. and therefore-states may in fact have valid reasons to deny it. Take it to court bubba.

entails different issue and consequences for society

...And yet, he mentions nothing.

Allow me to channel my inner you.... There are no consequences other than people are given the right to marry the one they love! It will have no effect on your homo marriage! This is about equal protection under the law and if you need it explained, go read Obergefell v. Hodges!

My homosexual marriage??!! You fucking moron! Yes it is about equal protection under the law but I do not have to explain squat. You are to fucking obtuse to understand that I am not taking a stand against it. Just saying that it's different. It's not the same issue. You don't give a shit about sibling marriage and probably don't want it to happen any more than you want gay marriage. You are just using it as an excuse to call me a hypocrite and to undermine my position on gay marriage. You have no shame or integrity.
.

 

[Pop23]

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?

Because of the potential risk of birth defect in close relation offspring. Believe it or not, this has been challenged in state law through the years. Sibling marriage is not permitted because of this potential risk... but "marriage" has now changed and is no longer defined as a male-female union, so the entire issue of procreation becomes moot.

Also, "traditional values" are no longer applicable. Your "fears it may lead to" arguments are invalidated by an established constitutional right of the individual now. Obergefell did not happen in a vacuum.

It seems that if birth defects were the only reason, infertile consanguineous couples might have already been given leave to marry. If cases have been ruled on in the past and defects are the only reason ever given, the state wouldn't have a precedent to use to prevent same sex consanguineous couples, at least.

Obergefell did not establish marriage as a constitutional right. That was done through multiple previous USSC rulings.

That something is not considered a strong enough argument in one instance does not mean the same will be true in others. The potential harm from consanguineous marriages, particularly regarding parents and children, will almost certainly be seen as stronger than any potential harm from same sex marriages, especially considering the reason for the potential harm is different.

The problem is the law itself.

The law prohibited all couples that are too closely related to marry because all couples that could - were male/female.

The prohibition qualified under equal protection and met the high standard of the states compelling interest of the innocent child and the innocent children of future generation.

Obergfell created new groups of potential partners. These partners cannot produce such harm either in the short or long term.

You now have the question, and because the requirement of sex is nowhere in the law, how this prohibition can be now meet the equal protection aspect, when only a minority of those newly eligible could produce offspring.

I might agree with opposite sex siblings being prohibited, but I'm not sure how that's accomplished with all the legal issues surrounding prohibiting groups from a law that doesn't first require sex?

 

[Pop23]

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?

Because of the potential risk of birth defect in close relation offspring. Believe it or not, this has been challenged in state law through the years. Sibling marriage is not permitted because of this potential risk... but "marriage" has now changed and is no longer defined as a male-female union, so the entire issue of procreation becomes moot.

Also, "traditional values" are no longer applicable. Your "fears it may lead to" arguments are invalidated by an established constitutional right of the individual now. Obergefell did not happen in a vacuum.

It seems that if birth defects were the only reason, infertile consanguineous couples might have already been given leave to marry. If cases have been ruled on in the past and defects are the only reason ever given, the state wouldn't have a precedent to use to prevent same sex consanguineous couples, at least.

Obergefell did not establish marriage as a constitutional right. That was done through multiple previous USSC rulings.

That something is not considered a strong enough argument in one instance does not mean the same will be true in others. The potential harm from consanguineous marriages, particularly regarding parents and children, will almost certainly be seen as stronger than any potential harm from same sex marriages, especially considering the reason for the potential harm is different.

Wisconsin allows First Cousins to marry- if they prove that they are not fertile.
Wisconsin does not allow siblings to marry- regardless of infertility.

Clearly to any rational person- State laws banning incestuous marriage are not based solely on the potential for procreation- otherwise Wisconsin would allow siblings to marry just like First Cousins.

Not at all.

Examine your argument. Same sex cousins will be allowed to marry without proving fertility (undue burdon).

The problem will then be, proof will be required of one group, and not of the other.

Why?

 

[EriktheRed]

Fag-bashers lost.

 

[Conservative65]

Fag-bashers lost.

If you're a fag, you're a loser.