Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
So is eating shellfish, owls, swans. So what? So are graven images or desiring the gold and silver on graven images. So is sacrificing a blemished sheep. So is a woman dressing like a man or a man dressing like a woman. As is paying a whore to fuck in a temple or church. So what? Going back to a first husband after leaving a second husband, like Kim Davis did, is also an abomination. So what?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?
I'm taking nothing out of context. You said sex is not a requirement of marriage. According to that, any brother can marry his sister. Always could have since Obergefell has nothing to do with that.When you post a baseless opinion, you should expect to be called on it.Your opinion is noted. Also noted is it is baseless.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
As is my baseless?
Drunk? That's my line, get your own
Go ahead faun, ignore the rest of my points, just take anything, from anyone you want out of context
You did and you were.When you post a baseless opinion, you should expect to be called on it.Your opinion is noted. Also noted is it is baseless.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
As is my baseless?
Drunk? That's my line, get your own
When I do, i will
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.
I'm taking nothing out of context. You said sex is not a requirement of marriage. According to that, any brother can marry his sister. Always could have since Obergefell has nothing to do with that.When you post a baseless opinion, you should expect to be called on it.Your opinion is noted. Also noted is it is baseless.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
As is my baseless?
Drunk? That's my line, get your own
Go ahead faun, ignore the rest of my points, just take anything, from anyone you want out of context
You did and you were.When you post a baseless opinion, you should expect to be called on it.Your opinion is noted. Also noted is it is baseless.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
As is my baseless?
Drunk? That's my line, get your own
When I do, i will
You're hopeless. I'm focused on that as I highlight your idiocy. You said sex is not a requirement of marriage. According to you, there was no reason a gay man couldn't marry his lesbian sister, even before Obergefell.I'm taking nothing out of context. You said sex is not a requirement of marriage. According to that, any brother can marry his sister. Always could have since Obergefell has nothing to do with that.When you post a baseless opinion, you should expect to be called on it.Your opinion is noted. Also noted is it is baseless.
As is my baseless?
Drunk? That's my line, get your own
Go ahead faun, ignore the rest of my points, just take anything, from anyone you want out of context
Marriage was between one man and one woman. You keep forgetting that.
Did and done. You're too late.You did and you were.When you post a baseless opinion, you should expect to be called on it.Your opinion is noted. Also noted is it is baseless.
As is my baseless?
Drunk? That's my line, get your own
When I do, i will
Nope, and nope.
You're hopeless. I'm focused on that as I highlight your idiocy. You said sex is not a requirement of marriage. According to you, there was no reason a gay man couldn't marry his lesbian sister, even before Obergefell.I'm taking nothing out of context. You said sex is not a requirement of marriage. According to that, any brother can marry his sister. Always could have since Obergefell has nothing to do with that.When you post a baseless opinion, you should expect to be called on it.As is my baseless?
Drunk? That's my line, get your own
Go ahead faun, ignore the rest of my points, just take anything, from anyone you want out of context
Marriage was between one man and one woman. You keep forgetting that.
Sibling marriage has no bigger cheerleader than you, huh?
Did and done. You're too late.You did and you were.When you post a baseless opinion, you should expect to be called on it.As is my baseless?
Drunk? That's my line, get your own
When I do, i will
Nope, and nope.
Has nothing to do what you said ... which was sex is not a requirement of marriage. So why couldn't a brother marry his sister before Obergefell?You're hopeless. I'm focused on that as I highlight your idiocy. You said sex is not a requirement of marriage. According to you, there was no reason a gay man couldn't marry his lesbian sister, even before Obergefell.I'm taking nothing out of context. You said sex is not a requirement of marriage. According to that, any brother can marry his sister. Always could have since Obergefell has nothing to do with that.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
Marriage was between one man and one woman. You keep forgetting that.
Sibling marriage has no bigger cheerleader than you, huh?
Find my quote that said that.
Did you know that all citizens must follow the same speed limit, even nascar drivers?
Then put the bong down.Did and done. You're too late.You did and you were.When you post a baseless opinion, you should expect to be called on it.
When I do, i will
Nope, and nope.
Not drunk then, but definitely high.
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?
Care to elaborate on that old sport?Fag-bashers lost.
If you're a fag, you're a loser.
Good for you Johnny Rebb......Thank you for that eloquent and important contribution to the subject.God is against homosexuality! I'm against homosexuality!
Has nothing to do what you said ... which was sex is not a requirement of marriage. So why couldn't a brother marry his sister before Obergefell?You're hopeless. I'm focused on that as I highlight your idiocy. You said sex is not a requirement of marriage. According to you, there was no reason a gay man couldn't marry his lesbian sister, even before Obergefell.I'm taking nothing out of context. You said sex is not a requirement of marriage. According to that, any brother can marry his sister. Always could have since Obergefell has nothing to do with that.Go ahead faun, ignore the rest of my points, just take anything, from anyone you want out of context
Marriage was between one man and one woman. You keep forgetting that.
Sibling marriage has no bigger cheerleader than you, huh?
Find my quote that said that.
Did you know that all citizens must follow the same speed limit, even nascar drivers?
See that? It's your argument laying dead on the floor. Hell, there's even a chalk mark around it.
Care to elaborate on that old sport?Fag-bashers lost.
If you're a fag, you're a loser.
You can't even help yourself, no less anyone else.Has nothing to do what you said ... which was sex is not a requirement of marriage. So why couldn't a brother marry his sister before Obergefell?You're hopeless. I'm focused on that as I highlight your idiocy. You said sex is not a requirement of marriage. According to you, there was no reason a gay man couldn't marry his lesbian sister, even before Obergefell.I'm taking nothing out of context. You said sex is not a requirement of marriage. According to that, any brother can marry his sister. Always could have since Obergefell has nothing to do with that.
Marriage was between one man and one woman. You keep forgetting that.
Sibling marriage has no bigger cheerleader than you, huh?
Find my quote that said that.
Did you know that all citizens must follow the same speed limit, even nascar drivers?
See that? It's your argument laying dead on the floor. Hell, there's even a chalk mark around it.
Wake up.
Read what Syriuosly wrote about a public safe guard. The law kept family members from each other for the common good. And discriminated against no one, up until Obergfell.
That safeguard now discrimiinates because a safegaurd against to males breeding is not a reasonable reason for exclussion.
Once again.
Glad I could help
Has nothing to do what you said ... which was sex is not a requirement of marriage. So why couldn't a brother marry his sister before Obergefell?
