Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Pop23]

Marriage was between one man and one woman. You keep forgetting that.

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.

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?

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?

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

You can't even help yourself, no less anyone else.

Obergefell does not cause the law to discriminate. Your argument remains as dead as ever.

Let's test your theory then:

Can you name a sound reasoned legally acceptable, other than procreation and the harm that incestuously conceived children can cause to society, reason that this was the only legal partnership that required the partners be of opposite gender, not to closely related?

Go for it.

If it is procreation, then obviously, excluding an entire demographic group of partners that biologically can't possibly procreate is the poster child for discrimination. Or so it would appear.

 

[Boss]

..the harm that incestuously conceived children can cause to society..

It might also be pointed out, while risk of birth defects are greater, there is no guarantee this will be the result. A sibling couple in The Netherlands had 6 kids, no birth defects. So even this argument, as valid as it may seem, is totally ambiguous. With the advent of groundbreaking science in genetics and DNA testing, we could ostensibly eliminate most birth defects through screening potential breeders and prohibiting certain relationships on the basis of risk they pose in procreation. Obviously, this would not be very popular.

 

[Pop23]

..the harm that incestuously conceived children can cause to society..

It might also be pointed out, while risk of birth defects are greater, there is no guarantee this will be the result. A sibling couple in The Netherlands had 6 kids, no birth defects. So even this argument, as valid as it may seem, is totally ambiguous. With the advent of groundbreaking science in genetics and DNA testing, we could ostensibly eliminate most birth defects through screening potential breeders and prohibiting certain relationships on the basis of risk they pose in procreation. Obviously, this would not be very popular.

Agreed to for the most part, and we both know that popularity is not sound legal reasoning.

Also, do you think that two brothers marrying should be forced into these genetic tests, or would that burden only fall on opposite sex couples, creating another legal paradox?

I might also point out, that birth defects of the innocent child although appalling, is not the greatest harm caused. the long term problems caused to future generations could be far worse, and this can only be fully understood by testing these children's offspring, and their offspring and on and on.

 

[Boss]

Also, do you think that two brothers marrying should be forced into these genetic tests, or would that burden only fall on opposite sex couples, creating another legal paradox?

Well I don't think we should do this, I was simply pointing out that we could do this. If our emphasis is going to be potential harm to society, we can justify all kinds of crazy shit. We now have nationalized health care and we're all collectively paying for it... so we have a compelling interest to eliminate behavior that could contribute to health care costs... like banning anal sex because of the risk in contracting AIDS.

What I would like for these liberal mush-brains to understand is, every case decided by SCOTUS has ramifications and consequences and they're not always associated with the issue at hand. Many who supported gay marriage simply think the Obergefell ruling exists in a vacuum and the ONLY thing it does is allows gays to marry. Sorry, that's not how SCOTUS rulings work.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Well unlike you- I have actually read the Bible.

Bullshit. You never read the bible. You google what you want to know. I used to lead a bible study class for 2 years. I forgot more about scripture than you'll ever know.

The bible doesn't state two women shouldn't have sex because they can't have sex. It does state that homosexuality is an abomination which two women being together falls under. Argue it all you want but ANY bible scholar would agree (and anyone with half a brain cell).

Romans 1:27 talks about how two men being together carries a high risk of disease and that any couple engaging in such acts will receive due penalty.

It all starts with Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Dave or Eve and Brittney. Had God wanted us to be homosexuals he would have designed us that way.

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, norsodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.”
—1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NKJV)

 

[Pop23]

Also, do you think that two brothers marrying should be forced into these genetic tests, or would that burden only fall on opposite sex couples, creating another legal paradox?

Well I don't think we should do this, I was simply pointing out that we could do this. If our emphasis is going to be potential harm to society, we can justify all kinds of crazy shit. We now have nationalized health care and we're all collectively paying for it... so we have a compelling interest to eliminate behavior that could contribute to health care costs... like banning anal sex because of the risk in contracting AIDS.

What I would like for these liberal mush-brains to understand is, every case decided by SCOTUS has ramifications and consequences and they're not always associated with the issue at hand. Many who supported gay marriage simply think the Obergefell ruling exists in a vacuum and the ONLY thing it does is allows gays to marry. Sorry, that's not how SCOTUS rulings work.

I agree, including family members as being eligible for marriage is dangerous, but I can't find the legal argument, especially with a law that doesn't have sex as a requirement AND which no longer requires that the partners be one from each gender, how we can exclude it entirely.

More troubling is that those that created the arguments that lead to this paradox, can't seem to come up with a fix either.

 

[Montrovant]

Also, do you think that two brothers marrying should be forced into these genetic tests, or would that burden only fall on opposite sex couples, creating another legal paradox?

Well I don't think we should do this, I was simply pointing out that we could do this. If our emphasis is going to be potential harm to society, we can justify all kinds of crazy shit. We now have nationalized health care and we're all collectively paying for it... so we have a compelling interest to eliminate behavior that could contribute to health care costs... like banning anal sex because of the risk in contracting AIDS.

What I would like for these liberal mush-brains to understand is, every case decided by SCOTUS has ramifications and consequences and they're not always associated with the issue at hand. Many who supported gay marriage simply think the Obergefell ruling exists in a vacuum and the ONLY thing it does is allows gays to marry. Sorry, that's not how SCOTUS rulings work.

We now have nationalized health care, do we? I wonder why I still see calls for a single payer system? Why not everyone has or is even eligible for state or federal health insurance?

I don't think people believe that SCOTUS rulings happen in a vacuum. I think people disagree with your beliefs about the consequences of the ruling. Do you understand the difference?

 

[Montrovant]

Also, do you think that two brothers marrying should be forced into these genetic tests, or would that burden only fall on opposite sex couples, creating another legal paradox?

Well I don't think we should do this, I was simply pointing out that we could do this. If our emphasis is going to be potential harm to society, we can justify all kinds of crazy shit. We now have nationalized health care and we're all collectively paying for it... so we have a compelling interest to eliminate behavior that could contribute to health care costs... like banning anal sex because of the risk in contracting AIDS.

What I would like for these liberal mush-brains to understand is, every case decided by SCOTUS has ramifications and consequences and they're not always associated with the issue at hand. Many who supported gay marriage simply think the Obergefell ruling exists in a vacuum and the ONLY thing it does is allows gays to marry. Sorry, that's not how SCOTUS rulings work.

I agree, including family members as being eligible for marriage is dangerous, but I can't find the legal argument, especially with a law that doesn't have sex as a requirement AND which no longer requires that the partners be one from each gender, how we can exclude it entirely.

More troubling is that those that created the arguments that lead to this paradox, can't seem to come up with a fix either.

If you are both opposed to consanguineous marriage, perhaps you could provide a reason for keeping it illegal. You must have a reason, yes? Or is it just 'icky', as you have accused others of using as a reason?

 

[Pop23]

Also, do you think that two brothers marrying should be forced into these genetic tests, or would that burden only fall on opposite sex couples, creating another legal paradox?

Well I don't think we should do this, I was simply pointing out that we could do this. If our emphasis is going to be potential harm to society, we can justify all kinds of crazy shit. We now have nationalized health care and we're all collectively paying for it... so we have a compelling interest to eliminate behavior that could contribute to health care costs... like banning anal sex because of the risk in contracting AIDS.

What I would like for these liberal mush-brains to understand is, every case decided by SCOTUS has ramifications and consequences and they're not always associated with the issue at hand. Many who supported gay marriage simply think the Obergefell ruling exists in a vacuum and the ONLY thing it does is allows gays to marry. Sorry, that's not how SCOTUS rulings work.

I agree, including family members as being eligible for marriage is dangerous, but I can't find the legal argument, especially with a law that doesn't have sex as a requirement AND which no longer requires that the partners be one from each gender, how we can exclude it entirely.

More troubling is that those that created the arguments that lead to this paradox, can't seem to come up with a fix either.

If you are both opposed to consanguineous marriage, perhaps you could provide a reason for keeping it illegal. You must have a reason, yes? Or is it just 'icky', as you have accused others of using as a reason?

family marriage between fertile opposite sex partners can create a defective innocent child and longer term social harm.

But that's just between those that can breed.

You already knew that.

I oppose all family marriage, now present the argument against it. I can't come up with a Compelling State Interest in denial to same sex siblings.

You?

 

[Montrovant]

Also, do you think that two brothers marrying should be forced into these genetic tests, or would that burden only fall on opposite sex couples, creating another legal paradox?

Well I don't think we should do this, I was simply pointing out that we could do this. If our emphasis is going to be potential harm to society, we can justify all kinds of crazy shit. We now have nationalized health care and we're all collectively paying for it... so we have a compelling interest to eliminate behavior that could contribute to health care costs... like banning anal sex because of the risk in contracting AIDS.

What I would like for these liberal mush-brains to understand is, every case decided by SCOTUS has ramifications and consequences and they're not always associated with the issue at hand. Many who supported gay marriage simply think the Obergefell ruling exists in a vacuum and the ONLY thing it does is allows gays to marry. Sorry, that's not how SCOTUS rulings work.

I agree, including family members as being eligible for marriage is dangerous, but I can't find the legal argument, especially with a law that doesn't have sex as a requirement AND which no longer requires that the partners be one from each gender, how we can exclude it entirely.

More troubling is that those that created the arguments that lead to this paradox, can't seem to come up with a fix either.

If you are both opposed to consanguineous marriage, perhaps you could provide a reason for keeping it illegal. You must have a reason, yes? Or is it just 'icky', as you have accused others of using as a reason?

family marriage between fertile opposite sex partners can create a defective innocent child and longer term social harm.

But that's just between those that can breed.

You already knew that.

I oppose all family marriage, now present the argument against it. I can't come up with a Compelling State Interest in denial to same sex siblings.

You?

Your only argument is potential genetic problems? So infertile opposite sex consanguineous marriage should be allowed?

I've given multiple possible reasons for preventing consanguineous marriages on multiple occasions. That you have dismissed those arguments doesn't mean I'm going to repeat them or that the courts would feel the same. We'll see if this issue is brought up, I suppose. If the courts feel the way you do, then even before Obergefell, infertile consanguineous couples would have been able to sue for the right to marry and won. Now we would just add same sex consanguineous couples to the list. If the courts, like you, cannot conceive of any other reason to prevent it, of course.

 

[bodecea]

..the harm that incestuously conceived children can cause to society..

It might also be pointed out, while risk of birth defects are greater, there is no guarantee this will be the result. A sibling couple in The Netherlands had 6 kids, no birth defects. So even this argument, as valid as it may seem, is totally ambiguous. With the advent of groundbreaking science in genetics and DNA testing, we could ostensibly eliminate most birth defects through screening potential breeders and prohibiting certain relationships on the basis of risk they pose in procreation. Obviously, this would not be very popular.

So..those 6 kids have had no children with birth defects too?

 

[Syriusly]

Well unlike you- I have actually read the Bible.

Bullshit. You never read the bible. You google what you want to know. I used to lead a bible study class for 2 years. I forgot more about scripture than you'll ever know.

The bible doesn't state two women shouldn't have sex because they can't have sex. It does state that homosexuality is an abomination which two women being together falls under. Argue it all you want but ANY bible scholar would agree (and anyone with half a brain cell).

Romans 1:27 talks about how two men being together carries a high risk of disease and that any couple engaging in such acts will receive due penalty.

It all starts with Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Dave or Eve and Brittney. Had God wanted us to be homosexuals he would have designed us that way.

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, norsodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.”
—1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NKJV)

The Bible specifically condemns male homosexuality- but not in Corinthians

Here is what 1 Corinthians (NIV) says

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with mena]">[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Footnotes:

1. 1 Corinthians 6:9 The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.

Note- no mention of women- other than perhaps as adulterers. Nor are homosexuals being called an abomination here- men having sex with other men is on the same level as the 'greedy' and 'drunkards'

Do you object to greedy persons marrying? What about people who sometimes get drunk? And how upset do you get with Hindu's- with all of those false idols?

I am sure that many 'Bible Scholars'- i.e. those who interpret the Bible to promote specific Conservative goals would agree with you.

I always wonder- why you- and they- focus so much time and energy on a subject of so little importance to Jesus- since he never even mentions homosexuality- and never spend any time on the sin of divorce and remarriage- and you have yet in this great tirade of yours to mention Jesus's two great commands- but I have.

Why is the issue of homosexuality- barely mentioned in the New Testament- never mentioned by Jesus- so much more important than what Jesus said was important?

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’a]">[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’b]">[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

 

[Faun]

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?

It depends on which of the 50 state laws you're talking about. In most of them, siblings can't marry because this type of marriage is prohibited by some public decency act, generally passed by Christians with moral values. Most of these public decency acts also include sodomy and homosexual acts but that was ruled unconstitutional in 2003 (Lawrence v. Texas)

So basically, any reason that we collectively have to ban sibling marriages has not yet been sustained by SCOTUS. Whenever "moral values" meets "individual liberty" the courts have ruled in favor of individual liberty. You may ask, then why hasn't sibling marriage become legal already? Perhaps the proponents have been waiting for a landmark SCOTUS ruling which redefines the nature of marriage and prohibits discrimination on the basis of tradition and morality?

I know this has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions. Why you ignore it is anybody's guess ... same-sex marriage was first legalized more than a decade ago. The parameters of marriage had changed and yet, incestuous marriage was still banned. Your entire premise is based on nothing but your delusion that incestuous marriage will become legal, we just have to wait until the day you are proven right. Even worse for your hallucinatory dementia is your bizarre belief that homosexuality is the same as incest, pedophilia, and beastiality. Your entire argument rolls downhill out of control as a result of such senile thinking. But then, such is expected from someone as deranged as you.

 

[Pop23]

Also, do you think that two brothers marrying should be forced into these genetic tests, or would that burden only fall on opposite sex couples, creating another legal paradox?

Well I don't think we should do this, I was simply pointing out that we could do this. If our emphasis is going to be potential harm to society, we can justify all kinds of crazy shit. We now have nationalized health care and we're all collectively paying for it... so we have a compelling interest to eliminate behavior that could contribute to health care costs... like banning anal sex because of the risk in contracting AIDS.

What I would like for these liberal mush-brains to understand is, every case decided by SCOTUS has ramifications and consequences and they're not always associated with the issue at hand. Many who supported gay marriage simply think the Obergefell ruling exists in a vacuum and the ONLY thing it does is allows gays to marry. Sorry, that's not how SCOTUS rulings work.

I agree, including family members as being eligible for marriage is dangerous, but I can't find the legal argument, especially with a law that doesn't have sex as a requirement AND which no longer requires that the partners be one from each gender, how we can exclude it entirely.

More troubling is that those that created the arguments that lead to this paradox, can't seem to come up with a fix either.

If you are both opposed to consanguineous marriage, perhaps you could provide a reason for keeping it illegal. You must have a reason, yes? Or is it just 'icky', as you have accused others of using as a reason?

family marriage between fertile opposite sex partners can create a defective innocent child and longer term social harm.

But that's just between those that can breed.

You already knew that.

I oppose all family marriage, now present the argument against it. I can't come up with a Compelling State Interest in denial to same sex siblings.

You?

Your only argument is potential genetic problems? So infertile opposite sex consanguineous marriage should be allowed?

I've given multiple possible reasons for preventing consanguineous marriages on multiple occasions. That you have dismissed those arguments doesn't mean I'm going to repeat them or that the courts would feel the same. We'll see if this issue is brought up, I suppose. If the courts feel the way you do, then even before Obergefell, infertile consanguineous couples would have been able to sue for the right to marry and won. Now we would just add same sex consanguineous couples to the list. If the courts, like you, cannot conceive of any other reason to prevent it, of course.

I'm sorry you think I ignored your argument about consanguineous couples and the other reasons you might have to deny marriage. I think I covered them earlier. If not, let's go through those.

Possible abuse? That exists in all marriages, but since marriage is a constitutional right, the bar that the State must overcome is incredibly high. It must pass the "Strict Scrutiny Test", not the "Rational Basis Test".

Since the possibbilty of abuse is possible in all marriage, then, to rise above the strict scrutiny test, you must prove that there is not just the possibility of it happening in all same sex sibling marriage, but that the likelihood of it happening is far greater than non related family marriage.

Can you do that?

 

[Faun]

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.

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?

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?

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

You can't even help yourself, no less anyone else.

Obergefell does not cause the law to discriminate. Your argument remains as dead as ever.

Let's test your theory then:

Can you name a sound reasoned legally acceptable, other than procreation and the harm that incestuously conceived children can cause to society, reason that this was the only legal partnership that required the partners be of opposite gender, not to closely related?

Go for it.

If it is procreation, then obviously, excluding an entire demographic group of partners that biologically can't possibly procreate is the poster child for discrimination. Or so it would appear.

As you pointed out, neither sex nor procreation are requirements of marriage. Using your logic, a brother and sister could have married prior to Obergefell. Afterall, such a marriage did not require incestuous behavior and should have been allowed.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Ignoring once again that Wisconsin law shows that your argument that the prohibition against incest is due to procreation.

Once again:
Wisconsin allows First Cousins to marry- but only if they prove that they are unable to bear children. As you noted- several other states do the same thing.
Wisconsin and all other states ban all siblings from marrying- regardless of whether they can have children or not.

Which by simple powers of deduction demonstrates that none of the States that allow infertile first cousins to marry base their bans on sibling marriage upon procreation- but some other issue.

 

[Pop23]

Find my quote that said that.

Did you know that all citizens must follow the same speed limit, even nascar drivers?

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?

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

You can't even help yourself, no less anyone else.

Obergefell does not cause the law to discriminate. Your argument remains as dead as ever.

Let's test your theory then:

Can you name a sound reasoned legally acceptable, other than procreation and the harm that incestuously conceived children can cause to society, reason that this was the only legal partnership that required the partners be of opposite gender, not to closely related?

Go for it.

If it is procreation, then obviously, excluding an entire demographic group of partners that biologically can't possibly procreate is the poster child for discrimination. Or so it would appear.

As you pointed out, neither sex nor procreation are requirements of marriage. Using your logic, a brother and sister could have married prior to Obergefell. Afterall, such a marriage did not require incestuous behavior and should have been allowed.

Your mutually exclussive thought process fails you.

Marriage exists. If it exists as a law, then logically it exists for a reason, correct?

Prior to Obergfell it existed differently then after, correct again?

 

[Syriusly]

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

The courts have been ruling that tradition is not an acceptable argument since at least Loving v. Virginia.
And as we have discussed with the issue regarding siblings versus first cousins marrying- procreation clearly hasn't been the reason States have been prohibiting incestuous marriages.

That you do not accept any reason that has been posted here just demonstrates your own peculiar bias- which of course is based upon your butt hurt that gay couples can legally marry.

 

[Faun]

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?

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

You can't even help yourself, no less anyone else.

Obergefell does not cause the law to discriminate. Your argument remains as dead as ever.

Let's test your theory then:

Can you name a sound reasoned legally acceptable, other than procreation and the harm that incestuously conceived children can cause to society, reason that this was the only legal partnership that required the partners be of opposite gender, not to closely related?

Go for it.

If it is procreation, then obviously, excluding an entire demographic group of partners that biologically can't possibly procreate is the poster child for discrimination. Or so it would appear.

As you pointed out, neither sex nor procreation are requirements of marriage. Using your logic, a brother and sister could have married prior to Obergefell. Afterall, such a marriage did not require incestuous behavior and should have been allowed.

Your mutually exclussive thought process fails you.

Marriage exists. If it exists as a law, then logically it exists for a reason, correct?

Prior to Obergfell it existed differently then after, correct again?

And you said sex is not a requirement of marriage, so how could the state have prevented a man from marrying his sister given they may not even have sex together?

 

[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?

Ignoring once again that Wisconsin law shows that your argument that the prohibition against incest is due to procreation.

Once again:
Wisconsin allows First Cousins to marry- but only if they prove that they are unable to bear children. As you noted- several other states do the same thing.
Wisconsin and all other states ban all siblings from marrying- regardless of whether they can have children or not.

Which by simple powers of deduction demonstrates that none of the States that allow infertile first cousins to marry base their bans on sibling marriage upon procreation- but some other issue.

Wisconsin and the other states did not prohibit too closely related family members from marriage then did they.

You do understand that it is the State that defines "too closely related" is, not you.

Glad I could clear this up.

Interesting though, now, after Obergfell, it would appear same sex first cousins can marry without providing such evidence.

Odd don't you think?