Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Montrovant]

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Also, "traditional values" are no longer applicable.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?

Marriage doesn't require sex, but I believe there is an assumption of sex being part of marriage.

As Syriusly has posted a number of times, if a state allowed infertile first cousins to marry, why would it deny infertile siblings unless there is a reason beyond potential genetic defects?

If children coming from the marriages is the only reason to ban consanguineous marriages, both same sex and infertile consanguineous couples would have a good chance of getting the law changed.

 

[Pop23]

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.

And yet there is now proof of that any more than with same sex adoption. The sample sizes in both are far to small.

Innocent until proven guilty still rules.

As I've said before. The law itself is the problem.

 

[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.

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.

Well. if you go research this, you will find that laws vary from state to state and country to country. There is currently no state that allows sibling marriage. Each state has it's own statutes to address incest relationships of which "marriage" is defined as a prohibited act associated with the behavior. However, it is difficult to ascertain the specific "justifications" for these statutes, they simply state that it is illegal. And as I said, they do this in different ways... for instance, in North Carolina, the issue of incest, and subsequently, sibling marriage, is covered in the Public Indecency Act along with a host of other behaviors such as adultery and "lewdness", some of which have already become legally acceptable under other laws and are no longer subject to the act. We're dealing with a lot of antiquated and outdated legislation passed sometimes over 100 years ago in a different era. I think the act from NC was originally passed in 1868.

Now, I have always assumed, and I am pretty sure most people have as well, that the main reasoning and justification for bans on sibling marriage is the concerns associated with birth defects of offspring. You want to shoot that down and demand that I present something else and I don't honestly know of any other reason... do you? Aside from the fact that it's frowned upon as taboo in society... but the same could be said for homosexuality just a short time ago. In fact, I believe homosexual acts are covered in the aforementioned North Carolina Public Indecency Act.

That something is not considered a strong enough argument in one instance does not mean the same will be true in others.

That's exactly what it means when the argument is the same. The 14th doesn't say it applies only when you want it to apply and not whenever you don't.

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.

I've not seen you or anyone else explain what this "potential harm" is... other than some moralistic viewpoint which is fundamentally no different than the same moral arguments against gay marriage. You need to come up with something substantial and compelling here and you simply haven't. You keep talking in grandiose platitudes about morality and decency like a Baptist evangelist but you're really presenting a piss poor legal argument that will not withstand a court challenge in 2015.

 

[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?

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.

And yet there is now proof of that any more than with same sex adoption. The sample sizes in both are far to small.

Innocent until proven guilty still rules.

As I've said before. The law itself is the problem.

If the couples involved were being charged with a crime, they would be innocent until proven guilty.

The sample sizes are too small for what?

There are often problems with laws. When laws are struck down as unconstitutional it probably always causes some problems.

 

[Pop23]

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?

Marriage doesn't require sex, but I believe there is an assumption of sex being part of marriage.

As Syriusly has posted a number of times, if a state allowed infertile first cousins to marry, why would it deny infertile siblings unless there is a reason beyond potential genetic defects?

If children coming from the marriages is the only reason to ban consanguineous marriages, both same sex and infertile consanguineous couples would have a good chance of getting the law changed.

No, that's wrong. The law is clear that those that are "too closely blood related" are prohibited. First cousins could, in some veiw fall outside the direct bloodline, but siblings could never be considered not closely related. The only ones closer are the parents themselves.

And, it's not just Wisconsin, many states allow infertile, or cousins that are past the age of procreation to marry.

Then the new paradox, do you require same sex cousins to prove infertility? To what gain?

 

[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?

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.

And yet there is now proof of that any more than with same sex adoption. The sample sizes in both are far to small.

Innocent until proven guilty still rules.

As I've said before. The law itself is the problem.

If the couples involved were being charged with a crime, they would be innocent until proven guilty.

The sample sizes are too small for what?

There are often problems with laws. When laws are struck down as unconstitutional it probably always causes some problems.

The sample sizes are to small to make reasoned judgements.

Your last sentence is the question at hand isn't it. To pretend none exist is far more dangerous than discussing it and it's implications.

 

[Faun]

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.

They've been given to you many times already. At this point, you have no one to blame but yourself for not knowing what they are.

You can give them a thousand times, but each time you must present a compelling state interest to deny the individual

Because I say so ain't very compelling

And yet, that was not one of the reasons. Who knows why you need to be told again what they are? You've been told so many times that it's clear you just don't understand. There is no point in telling you again as you will only not understand again and that will only make you even more frustrated. Why would I want to torture you like that?

You can post as often as you want that there are reasons, but refuse to post them, but in the end, the reason you don't is obvious........

They won't meet the requirements, you just like to deflect.

Now you're just lying. I didn't refuse to post them. I pointed out they've been posted many times.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Well. if you go research this, you will find that laws vary from state to state and country to country. There is currently no state that allows sibling marriage. Each state has it's own statutes to address incest relationships of which "marriage" is defined as a prohibited act associated with the behavior. However, it is difficult to ascertain the specific "justifications" for these statutes, they simply state that it is illegal. And as I said, they do this in different ways... for instance, in North Carolina, the issue of incest, and subsequently, sibling marriage, is covered in the Public Indecency Act along with a host of other behaviors such as adultery and "lewdness", some of which have already become legally acceptable under other laws and are no longer subject to the act. We're dealing with a lot of antiquated and outdated legislation passed sometimes over 100 years ago in a different era. I think the act from NC was originally passed in 1868.

Now, I have always assumed, and I am pretty sure most people have as well, that the main reasoning and justification for bans on sibling marriage is the concerns associated with birth defects of offspring. You want to shoot that down and demand that I present something else and I don't honestly know of any other reason... do you? Aside from the fact that it's frowned upon as taboo in society... but the same could be said for homosexuality just a short time ago. In fact, I believe homosexual acts are covered in the aforementioned North Carolina Public Indecency Act.

That something is not considered a strong enough argument in one instance does not mean the same will be true in others.

That's exactly what it means when the argument is the same. The 14th doesn't say it applies only when you want it to apply and not whenever you don't.

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.

I've not seen you or anyone else explain what this "potential harm" is... other than some moralistic viewpoint which is fundamentally no different than the same moral arguments against gay marriage. You need to come up with something substantial and compelling here and you simply haven't. You keep talking in grandiose platitudes about morality and decency like a Baptist evangelist but you're really presenting a piss poor legal argument that will withstand a court challenge in 2015.

When it comes to parents and children you have a person in a position of authority over the other. That creates a greater danger of abuse and exploitation than other relationships. I have compared this to teacher/student relationships in the past. Teachers are not allowed to have romantic relations with students even if they are of legal age. While not necessarily a criminal act, I think some of the reasoning behind preventing such relationships and preventing parent/child romantic relationships is the same; again, one person in a position of power over another.

I've said before it becomes more of a muddied argument with adult siblings. There can still be that danger of one sibling having been an authority figure over the other, but does that rise to a level of danger strong enough to constitute a compelling state interest? I don't know.

There is also the fact that marriage involves the creation of a new immediate family unit, legally speaking. If the participants are already immediate family members, the state might argue that creating a new family unit is part of the requirements for marriage and that is reason to prevent consanguineous marriage. That might well depend on how various marriage laws are written or perhaps previous court rulings setting some sort of precedent.

I agree that a good deal of the reason for preventing such marriages is fear of possible genetic issues and social taboos. There are other possible reasons as well. Whether any of them would stand up in court is not something anyone can say for sure. One big difference is that I don't believe there are very many consanguineous relationships existing and so the likelihood of cases being brought to court are less; along with that, while homosexuality in general and same sex marriage in particular have seen a gradual increase in acceptance over the past decades, there has been no such growth in acceptance of consanguineous relationships that I'm aware of. Part of what pushed same sex marriage through the courts, and potentially influenced the decision, is that society was ready to accept the Obergefell decision.

What 'grandiose platitudes' have I used? Talking like a Baptist evangelist?

What potential harm from same sex marriage was argued prior to Obergefell? How were those arguments 'fundamentally no different' from those presented regarding consanguineous marriage? If your answer is that they are based on moral judgements, as I've said before, all law can be broken down to moral judgements. Unless you want to say that all law should be invalidated, I fail to see the point.

 

[Pop23]

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.

They've been given to you many times already. At this point, you have no one to blame but yourself for not knowing what they are.

You can give them a thousand times, but each time you must present a compelling state interest to deny the individual

Because I say so ain't very compelling

And yet, that was not one of the reasons. Who knows why you need to be told again what they are? You've been told so many times that it's clear you just don't understand. There is no point in telling you again as you will only not understand again and that will only make you even more frustrated. Why would I want to torture you like that?

You can post as often as you want that there are reasons, but refuse to post them, but in the end, the reason you don't is obvious........

They won't meet the requirements, you just like to deflect.

Now you're just lying. I didn't refuse to post them. I pointed out they've been posted many times.

Not that met the standard required to deny an individual their constitutional rights. Strict scrutiny rule is in play with those rights, and since sex is not a requirement in this, or any other mutual benefit partnership, you must explain why only one of these require a prohibition

The courts have ruled that tradition does not trump a constitutional right b

 

[Montrovant]

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.

And yet there is now proof of that any more than with same sex adoption. The sample sizes in both are far to small.

Innocent until proven guilty still rules.

As I've said before. The law itself is the problem.

If the couples involved were being charged with a crime, they would be innocent until proven guilty.

The sample sizes are too small for what?

There are often problems with laws. When laws are struck down as unconstitutional it probably always causes some problems.

The sample sizes are to small to make reasoned judgements.

Your last sentence is the question at hand isn't it. To pretend none exist is far more dangerous than discussing it and it's implications.

I don't have any real idea the numbers for either same sex couples adopting nor exploitation in consanguineous relationships. In the latter case I think it is less a matter of statistics and more perceived danger based on the unusual dynamic between immediate family members when compared to not closely related people.

 

[Boss]

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.

Well. if you go research this, you will find that laws vary from state to state and country to country. There is currently no state that allows sibling marriage. Each state has it's own statutes to address incest relationships of which "marriage" is defined as a prohibited act associated with the behavior. However, it is difficult to ascertain the specific "justifications" for these statutes, they simply state that it is illegal. And as I said, they do this in different ways... for instance, in North Carolina, the issue of incest, and subsequently, sibling marriage, is covered in the Public Indecency Act along with a host of other behaviors such as adultery and "lewdness", some of which have already become legally acceptable under other laws and are no longer subject to the act. We're dealing with a lot of antiquated and outdated legislation passed sometimes over 100 years ago in a different era. I think the act from NC was originally passed in 1868.

Now, I have always assumed, and I am pretty sure most people have as well, that the main reasoning and justification for bans on sibling marriage is the concerns associated with birth defects of offspring. You want to shoot that down and demand that I present something else and I don't honestly know of any other reason... do you? Aside from the fact that it's frowned upon as taboo in society... but the same could be said for homosexuality just a short time ago. In fact, I believe homosexual acts are covered in the aforementioned North Carolina Public Indecency Act.

That something is not considered a strong enough argument in one instance does not mean the same will be true in others.

That's exactly what it means when the argument is the same. The 14th doesn't say it applies only when you want it to apply and not whenever you don't.

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.

I've not seen you or anyone else explain what this "potential harm" is... other than some moralistic viewpoint which is fundamentally no different than the same moral arguments against gay marriage. You need to come up with something substantial and compelling here and you simply haven't. You keep talking in grandiose platitudes about morality and decency like a Baptist evangelist but you're really presenting a piss poor legal argument that will withstand a court challenge in 2015.

When it comes to parents and children you have a person in a position of authority over the other. That creates a greater danger of abuse and exploitation than other relationships. I have compared this to teacher/student relationships in the past. Teachers are not allowed to have romantic relations with students even if they are of legal age. While not necessarily a criminal act, I think some of the reasoning behind preventing such relationships and preventing parent/child romantic relationships is the same; again, one person in a position of power over another.

I've said before it becomes more of a muddied argument with adult siblings. There can still be that danger of one sibling having been an authority figure over the other, but does that rise to a level of danger strong enough to constitute a compelling state interest? I don't know.

There is also the fact that marriage involves the creation of a new immediate family unit, legally speaking. If the participants are already immediate family members, the state might argue that creating a new family unit is part of the requirements for marriage and that is reason to prevent consanguineous marriage. That might well depend on how various marriage laws are written or perhaps previous court rulings setting some sort of precedent.

I agree that a good deal of the reason for preventing such marriages is fear of possible genetic issues and social taboos. There are other possible reasons as well. Whether any of them would stand up in court is not something anyone can say for sure. One big difference is that I don't believe there are very many consanguineous relationships existing and so the likelihood of cases being brought to court are less; along with that, while homosexuality in general and same sex marriage in particular have seen a gradual increase in acceptance over the past decades, there has been no such growth in acceptance of consanguineous relationships that I'm aware of. Part of what pushed same sex marriage through the courts, and potentially influenced the decision, is that society was ready to accept the Obergefell decision.

What 'grandiose platitudes' have I used? Talking like a Baptist evangelist?

What potential harm from same sex marriage was argued prior to Obergefell? How were those arguments 'fundamentally no different' from those presented regarding consanguineous marriage? If your answer is that they are based on moral judgements, as I've said before, all law can be broken down to moral judgements. Unless you want to say that all law should be invalidated, I fail to see the point.

Well at least you are now admitting that you just don't know how a court might rule... that's progress.

The "potential harm" argument regarding gay marriage was that it would undermine the traditional institution of marriage which, in turn, undermines societal foundations of family.

 

[Faun]

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?

Marriage doesn't require sex, but I believe there is an assumption of sex being part of marriage.

As Syriusly has posted a number of times, if a state allowed infertile first cousins to marry, why would it deny infertile siblings unless there is a reason beyond potential genetic defects?

If children coming from the marriages is the only reason to ban consanguineous marriages, both same sex and infertile consanguineous couples would have a good chance of getting the law changed.

No, that's wrong. The law is clear that those that are "too closely blood related" are prohibited. First cousins could, in some veiw fall outside the direct bloodline, but siblings could never be considered not closely related. The only ones closer are the parents themselves.

And, it's not just Wisconsin, many states allow infertile, or cousins that are past the age of procreation to marry.

Then the new paradox, do you require same sex cousins to prove infertility? To what gain?

Prove what? You said sex isn't a requirement of marriage. According to you, anyone can marry and always could.

 

[Faun]

They've been given to you many times already. At this point, you have no one to blame but yourself for not knowing what they are.

You can give them a thousand times, but each time you must present a compelling state interest to deny the individual

Because I say so ain't very compelling

And yet, that was not one of the reasons. Who knows why you need to be told again what they are? You've been told so many times that it's clear you just don't understand. There is no point in telling you again as you will only not understand again and that will only make you even more frustrated. Why would I want to torture you like that?

You can post as often as you want that there are reasons, but refuse to post them, but in the end, the reason you don't is obvious........

They won't meet the requirements, you just like to deflect.

Now you're just lying. I didn't refuse to post them. I pointed out they've been posted many times.

Not that met the standard required to deny an individual their constitutional rights. Strict scrutiny rule is in play with those rights, and since sex is not a requirement in this, or any other mutual benefit partnership, you must explain why only one of these require a prohibition

The courts have ruled that tradition does not trump a constitutional right b

Your opinion is noted. Also noted is it is baseless.

 

[Pop23]

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?

Marriage doesn't require sex, but I believe there is an assumption of sex being part of marriage.

As Syriusly has posted a number of times, if a state allowed infertile first cousins to marry, why would it deny infertile siblings unless there is a reason beyond potential genetic defects?

If children coming from the marriages is the only reason to ban consanguineous marriages, both same sex and infertile consanguineous couples would have a good chance of getting the law changed.

No, that's wrong. The law is clear that those that are "too closely blood related" are prohibited. First cousins could, in some veiw fall outside the direct bloodline, but siblings could never be considered not closely related. The only ones closer are the parents themselves.

And, it's not just Wisconsin, many states allow infertile, or cousins that are past the age of procreation to marry.

Then the new paradox, do you require same sex cousins to prove infertility? To what gain?

Prove what? You said sex isn't a requirement of marriage. According to you, anyone can marry and always could.

Are you deaf?

 

[Pop23]

You can give them a thousand times, but each time you must present a compelling state interest to deny the individual

Because I say so ain't very compelling

And yet, that was not one of the reasons. Who knows why you need to be told again what they are? You've been told so many times that it's clear you just don't understand. There is no point in telling you again as you will only not understand again and that will only make you even more frustrated. Why would I want to torture you like that?

You can post as often as you want that there are reasons, but refuse to post them, but in the end, the reason you don't is obvious........

They won't meet the requirements, you just like to deflect.

Now you're just lying. I didn't refuse to post them. I pointed out they've been posted many times.

Not that met the standard required to deny an individual their constitutional rights. Strict scrutiny rule is in play with those rights, and since sex is not a requirement in this, or any other mutual benefit partnership, you must explain why only one of these require a prohibition

The courts have ruled that tradition does not trump a constitutional right b

Your opinion is noted. Also noted is it is baseless.

As is my baseless?

Drunk? That's my line, get your own

 

[Faun]

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?

Marriage doesn't require sex, but I believe there is an assumption of sex being part of marriage.

As Syriusly has posted a number of times, if a state allowed infertile first cousins to marry, why would it deny infertile siblings unless there is a reason beyond potential genetic defects?

If children coming from the marriages is the only reason to ban consanguineous marriages, both same sex and infertile consanguineous couples would have a good chance of getting the law changed.

No, that's wrong. The law is clear that those that are "too closely blood related" are prohibited. First cousins could, in some veiw fall outside the direct bloodline, but siblings could never be considered not closely related. The only ones closer are the parents themselves.

And, it's not just Wisconsin, many states allow infertile, or cousins that are past the age of procreation to marry.

Then the new paradox, do you require same sex cousins to prove infertility? To what gain?

Prove what? You said sex isn't a requirement of marriage. According to you, anyone can marry and always could.

Are you deaf?

You didn't say sex is not a requirement of marriage??

 

[Faun]

And yet, that was not one of the reasons. Who knows why you need to be told again what they are? You've been told so many times that it's clear you just don't understand. There is no point in telling you again as you will only not understand again and that will only make you even more frustrated. Why would I want to torture you like that?

You can post as often as you want that there are reasons, but refuse to post them, but in the end, the reason you don't is obvious........

They won't meet the requirements, you just like to deflect.

Now you're just lying. I didn't refuse to post them. I pointed out they've been posted many times.

Not that met the standard required to deny an individual their constitutional rights. Strict scrutiny rule is in play with those rights, and since sex is not a requirement in this, or any other mutual benefit partnership, you must explain why only one of these require a prohibition

The courts have ruled that tradition does not trump a constitutional right b

Your opinion is noted. Also noted is it is baseless.

As is my baseless?

Drunk? That's my line, get your own

When you post a baseless opinion, you should expect to be called on it.

 

[airplanemechanic]

As you point out- the Bible doesn't say a thing forbidding two men or two women from marrying.

The bible states homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord. Gay marriage would be under "homosexuality."

Are you really this stupid or do you just troll?

 

[Pop23]

You can post as often as you want that there are reasons, but refuse to post them, but in the end, the reason you don't is obvious........

They won't meet the requirements, you just like to deflect.

Now you're just lying. I didn't refuse to post them. I pointed out they've been posted many times.

Not that met the standard required to deny an individual their constitutional rights. Strict scrutiny rule is in play with those rights, and since sex is not a requirement in this, or any other mutual benefit partnership, you must explain why only one of these require a prohibition

The courts have ruled that tradition does not trump a constitutional right b

Your opinion is noted. Also noted is it is baseless.

As is my baseless?

Drunk? That's my line, get your own

When you post a baseless opinion, you should expect to be called on it.

Go ahead faun, ignore the rest of my points, just take anything, from anyone you want out of context

 

[Pop23]

You can post as often as you want that there are reasons, but refuse to post them, but in the end, the reason you don't is obvious........

They won't meet the requirements, you just like to deflect.

Now you're just lying. I didn't refuse to post them. I pointed out they've been posted many times.

Not that met the standard required to deny an individual their constitutional rights. Strict scrutiny rule is in play with those rights, and since sex is not a requirement in this, or any other mutual benefit partnership, you must explain why only one of these require a prohibition

The courts have ruled that tradition does not trump a constitutional right b

Your opinion is noted. Also noted is it is baseless.

As is my baseless?

Drunk? That's my line, get your own

When you post a baseless opinion, you should expect to be called on it.

When I do, i will