Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Skylar]

Thanks for proving me right.

Proving your a racist, bigoted, homophobe, right wing hater dupe wasn't all that hard.

But thanking me is always appreciated.

My gratitude was for proving me right, not for proving you right. Dayam, you're too fucking deranged to even comprehend that.

I'm not the one sleeping with someone with my own gender.

You look silly, no matter if your OCD controlled mind fathoms that or not. Of course if it did, you wouldn't be controlled by your OCD.

And that won't happen until you get proper theropy.

So? Neither am I. The rest of your projection is noted as usual.

^^^ her OCD made her say this.

Forgive her, I have

And Pop predictably collapses into personal insults.

Sigh......trolling is as trolling does, I suppose.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

and the ONLY thing it does is allows gays to marry. Sorry, that's not how SCOTUS rulings work.

Yeah- actually the only thing that Obergefel does do is overturn bans on same gender marriage. That is how Supreme Court rulings work.

When Loving v. Virginia was made, it did not mean that polygamous groups could not marry- despite Virginia's warnings. When Massachusetts courts overturned Massachusetts ban on same gender marriage- it did not mean that siblings could marry- despite the Catholic Leagues warnings.

The only ones promoting incestuous and polygamous marriage here- are those who actually oppose it- Boss and Pops- because of their butt hurt over homosexuals being allowed to marry each other.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

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

My answer, which you obviously wish to ignore is in the thread just above yours.

Deflection noted though b

You answered nothing. You just danced with your straw man.

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

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Gas is not a requirement to drive down the highway, but electric car owners must still obey speed limits, because the equal application of the law is all that is required for a law not to be discrimination.

Gas clearly fuels Pops posts.

 

[Syriusly]

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

Faun says one thing.

Pops just drags out another straw man- unresponsive to Faun's post.

That's because his argument has been appropriately disassembled many times over to the point he can no longer explain it or defend it. What's left for him besides either accepting defeat or pulling out more deflections from his ass?

You realize this makes you a racist, bigot, homophobe, right wing hater dupe, right?

You're fucking deranged.

^^^^ why would anyone beleive a racist, bigot, homophobe, right wing hater dupe?

Always amusing when a bigot like Pop calls everyone who disagrees with his desire to discriminate- 'bigots'

 

[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?

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?

The exact same argument that allows infertile cousins to marry, but not infertile siblings.

You reject any argument that doesn't support your straw man.

No point in pretending like you actually desire an answer- you just want to reject every answer other than the one you have created.

Because Wisconsin doesn't feel cousins are so closely related?

Got it.

But it is odd that in both cases the law seems to keep both from procreating. So why would Wisconsin deny same sex siblings.

The search for the States Compelling Interst continues.

Thanks

 

[Pop23]

Faun says one thing.

Pops just drags out another straw man- unresponsive to Faun's post.

That's because his argument has been appropriately disassembled many times over to the point he can no longer explain it or defend it. What's left for him besides either accepting defeat or pulling out more deflections from his ass?

You realize this makes you a racist, bigot, homophobe, right wing hater dupe, right?

You're fucking deranged.

^^^^ why would anyone beleive a racist, bigot, homophobe, right wing hater dupe?

Always amusing when a bigot like Pop calls everyone who disagrees with his desire to discriminate- 'bigots'

Yet I am the one pointing out that discrimination exists?

You look silly again.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

I would love to see that quote- or maybe you are speaking of some other poster with a name much like mine.

Because it appears to me that you are just lying about what I said- again.

You didn't post the quote from Judge Crabb multiple times?

Funny, I thought that was you?

Like I said- you are just lying about what I said again- par for the course for you.

Wake up.

Here is you- lying about what I said:
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.

I would love to see that quote- or maybe you are speaking of some other poster with a name much like mine.

Because it appears to me that you are just lying about what I said- again.

 

[Pop23]

Nope, just demonstrating the legal application of equal law.

It is equal application that makes law non discriminatiry

So that's why you think incest marriage and polygamy should be legalized?

I've been asking you to make your argument for weeks. Is this your awkward attempt to actually do so?

I openly oppose both.

So when you babble about 'equal protection of the law', you're *not* arguing for the legalization of incest marriage and polygamy?

The problem with hater-dupes is that they think I'm mutually exclussive terms.

Or...your standards are merely applied to you. By advocating the argument that incest marriage and polygamy should be legal......that strongly insinuates that you support the legalization of each. And you've clearly cited 'insinuation' as 'evidence'.

Your standards apply to you, do they not?

And given your obsession with the topics, as you discuss virtually nothing else.....this obvious support of the legalization of incest marriage and polygamy becomes even more apparent.

other posters obviously can't either, somehow I'm not opposed to incest?

Like your claim that I said sex was a requirement of marriage?

Yet every time I demand you quote me saying as much......you try to change the topic.

Odd that. Its like you're holding us to one standard....but yourself to another.

I can't quote something you claim that I said you said, when no such claim was initially made.

And I can oppose potential problems without knowing how to legally stop the problem.

You are a shallow thinker, but any non OCD afflicted mind can easily see that.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

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?

The exact same argument that allows infertile cousins to marry, but not infertile siblings.

You reject any argument that doesn't support your straw man.

No point in pretending like you actually desire an answer- you just want to reject every answer other than the one you have created.

Because Wisconsin doesn't feel cousins are so closely related?

Got it.

But it is odd that in both cases the law seems to keep both from procreating. So why would Wisconsin deny same sex siblings.

The search for the States Compelling Interst continues.

Thanks

Wisconsin clearly doesn't care about procreation- since infertile siblings cannot marry- but infertile First cousins can marry.

The marriage laws do not prevent anyone from procreating- the law limits marriage for first cousins to those who cannot procreate.

The law doesn't allow siblings to marry whether they can procreate or not.

Bans on incestuous marriage are not based upon the possibility of procreation.

Logic simple enough for a 10 year old- yet too complex for homophobes.

 

[Syriusly]

So that's why you think incest marriage and polygamy should be legalized?

I've been asking you to make your argument for weeks. Is this your awkward attempt to actually do so?

I openly oppose both.

So when you babble about 'equal protection of the law', you're *not* arguing for the legalization of incest marriage and polygamy?

The problem with hater-dupes is that they think I'm mutually exclussive terms.

Or...your standards are merely applied to you. By advocating the argument that incest marriage and polygamy should be legal......that strongly insinuates that you support the legalization of each. And you've clearly cited 'insinuation' as 'evidence'.

Your standards apply to you, do they not?

And given your obsession with the topics, as you discuss virtually nothing else.....this obvious support of the legalization of incest marriage and polygamy becomes even more apparent.

other posters obviously can't either, somehow I'm not opposed to incest?

Like your claim that I said sex was a requirement of marriage?

Yet every time I demand you quote me saying as much......you try to change the topic.

Odd that. Its like you're holding us to one standard....but yourself to another.

I can't quote something you claim that I said you said, when no such claim was initially made.

And I can oppose potential problems without knowing how to legally stop the problem.

You are a shallow thinker, but any non OCD afflicted mind can easily see that.

Like I said- you just lied about what I said.

But then you don't have a problem with prevarication..

 

[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.

I would love to see that quote- or maybe you are speaking of some other poster with a name much like mine.

Because it appears to me that you are just lying about what I said- again.

You didn't post the quote from Judge Crabb multiple times?

Funny, I thought that was you?

Like I said- you are just lying about what I said again- par for the course for you.

Wake up.

Here is you- lying about what I said:
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.

I would love to see that quote- or maybe you are speaking of some other poster with a name much like mine.

Because it appears to me that you are just lying about what I said- again.

Your posting included a quote from Judge Crabb. YOU INCLUDED IN IN YOUR SEVERAL DOZEN POSTS.

Got it

 

[Pop23]

I openly oppose both.

So when you babble about 'equal protection of the law', you're *not* arguing for the legalization of incest marriage and polygamy?

The problem with hater-dupes is that they think I'm mutually exclussive terms.

Or...your standards are merely applied to you. By advocating the argument that incest marriage and polygamy should be legal......that strongly insinuates that you support the legalization of each. And you've clearly cited 'insinuation' as 'evidence'.

Your standards apply to you, do they not?

And given your obsession with the topics, as you discuss virtually nothing else.....this obvious support of the legalization of incest marriage and polygamy becomes even more apparent.

other posters obviously can't either, somehow I'm not opposed to incest?

Like your claim that I said sex was a requirement of marriage?

Yet every time I demand you quote me saying as much......you try to change the topic.

Odd that. Its like you're holding us to one standard....but yourself to another.

I can't quote something you claim that I said you said, when no such claim was initially made.

And I can oppose potential problems without knowing how to legally stop the problem.

You are a shallow thinker, but any non OCD afflicted mind can easily see that.

Like I said- you just lied about what I said.

But then you don't have a problem with prevarication..

No I didi'nt. and crying just makes you look sad.

 

[Skylar]

I openly oppose both.

So when you babble about 'equal protection of the law', you're *not* arguing for the legalization of incest marriage and polygamy?

The problem with hater-dupes is that they think I'm mutually exclussive terms.

Or...your standards are merely applied to you. By advocating the argument that incest marriage and polygamy should be legal......that strongly insinuates that you support the legalization of each. And you've clearly cited 'insinuation' as 'evidence'.

Your standards apply to you, do they not?

And given your obsession with the topics, as you discuss virtually nothing else.....this obvious support of the legalization of incest marriage and polygamy becomes even more apparent.

other posters obviously can't either, somehow I'm not opposed to incest?

Like your claim that I said sex was a requirement of marriage?

Yet every time I demand you quote me saying as much......you try to change the topic.

Odd that. Its like you're holding us to one standard....but yourself to another.

I can't quote something you claim that I said you said, when no such claim was initially made.

And I can oppose potential problems without knowing how to legally stop the problem.

You are a shallow thinker, but any non OCD afflicted mind can easily see that.

Like I said- you just lied about what I said.

But then you don't have a problem with prevarication..

He's trolling. His sole purpose is to shut down threads like this.

I mean, after Boss' entire argument collapsed, they had to switch the conversation to something. As the whole 'killing homosexual marriage' bullshit wasn't working out too well.

 

[Pop23]

I openly oppose both.

So when you babble about 'equal protection of the law', you're *not* arguing for the legalization of incest marriage and polygamy?

The problem with hater-dupes is that they think I'm mutually exclussive terms.

Or...your standards are merely applied to you. By advocating the argument that incest marriage and polygamy should be legal......that strongly insinuates that you support the legalization of each. And you've clearly cited 'insinuation' as 'evidence'.

Your standards apply to you, do they not?

And given your obsession with the topics, as you discuss virtually nothing else.....this obvious support of the legalization of incest marriage and polygamy becomes even more apparent.

other posters obviously can't either, somehow I'm not opposed to incest?

Like your claim that I said sex was a requirement of marriage?

Yet every time I demand you quote me saying as much......you try to change the topic.

Odd that. Its like you're holding us to one standard....but yourself to another.

I can't quote something you claim that I said you said, when no such claim was initially made.

And I can oppose potential problems without knowing how to legally stop the problem.

You are a shallow thinker, but any non OCD afflicted mind can easily see that.

Like I said- you just lied about what I said.

But then you don't have a problem with prevarication..

And you, a life of deception and masturbation.

 

[Pop23]

So when you babble about 'equal protection of the law', you're *not* arguing for the legalization of incest marriage and polygamy?

The problem with hater-dupes is that they think I'm mutually exclussive terms.

Or...your standards are merely applied to you. By advocating the argument that incest marriage and polygamy should be legal......that strongly insinuates that you support the legalization of each. And you've clearly cited 'insinuation' as 'evidence'.

Your standards apply to you, do they not?

And given your obsession with the topics, as you discuss virtually nothing else.....this obvious support of the legalization of incest marriage and polygamy becomes even more apparent.

other posters obviously can't either, somehow I'm not opposed to incest?

Like your claim that I said sex was a requirement of marriage?

Yet every time I demand you quote me saying as much......you try to change the topic.

Odd that. Its like you're holding us to one standard....but yourself to another.

I can't quote something you claim that I said you said, when no such claim was initially made.

And I can oppose potential problems without knowing how to legally stop the problem.

You are a shallow thinker, but any non OCD afflicted mind can easily see that.

Like I said- you just lied about what I said.

But then you don't have a problem with prevarication..

He's trolling. His sole purpose is to shut down threads like this.

I mean, after Boss' entire argument collapsed, they had to switch the conversation to something. As the whole 'killing homosexual marriage' bullshit wasn't working out too well.

Is it Opposite Day in OCD world?

 

[Syriusly]

So when you babble about 'equal protection of the law', you're *not* arguing for the legalization of incest marriage and polygamy?

The problem with hater-dupes is that they think I'm mutually exclussive terms.

Or...your standards are merely applied to you. By advocating the argument that incest marriage and polygamy should be legal......that strongly insinuates that you support the legalization of each. And you've clearly cited 'insinuation' as 'evidence'.

Your standards apply to you, do they not?

And given your obsession with the topics, as you discuss virtually nothing else.....this obvious support of the legalization of incest marriage and polygamy becomes even more apparent.

other posters obviously can't either, somehow I'm not opposed to incest?

Like your claim that I said sex was a requirement of marriage?

Yet every time I demand you quote me saying as much......you try to change the topic.

Odd that. Its like you're holding us to one standard....but yourself to another.

I can't quote something you claim that I said you said, when no such claim was initially made.

And I can oppose potential problems without knowing how to legally stop the problem.

You are a shallow thinker, but any non OCD afflicted mind can easily see that.

Like I said- you just lied about what I said.

But then you don't have a problem with prevarication..

And you, a life of deception and masturbation.

And again:

Like I said- you just lied about what I said.

But then you don't have a problem with prevarication.

 

[Pop23]

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?

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?

The exact same argument that allows infertile cousins to marry, but not infertile siblings.

You reject any argument that doesn't support your straw man.

No point in pretending like you actually desire an answer- you just want to reject every answer other than the one you have created.

Because Wisconsin doesn't feel cousins are so closely related?

Got it.

But it is odd that in both cases the law seems to keep both from procreating. So why would Wisconsin deny same sex siblings.

The search for the States Compelling Interst continues.

Thanks

Wisconsin clearly doesn't care about procreation- since infertile siblings cannot marry- but infertile First cousins can marry.

The marriage laws do not prevent anyone from procreating- the law limits marriage for first cousins to those who cannot procreate.

The law doesn't allow siblings to marry whether they can procreate or not.

Bans on incestuous marriage are not based upon the possibility of procreation.

Logic simple enough for a 10 year old- yet too complex for homophobes.

If they don't care about it, why does the law make it impossible?

Do you ever think?

 

[Syriusly]

So when you babble about 'equal protection of the law', you're *not* arguing for the legalization of incest marriage and polygamy?

The problem with hater-dupes is that they think I'm mutually exclussive terms.

Or...your standards are merely applied to you. By advocating the argument that incest marriage and polygamy should be legal......that strongly insinuates that you support the legalization of each. And you've clearly cited 'insinuation' as 'evidence'.

Your standards apply to you, do they not?

And given your obsession with the topics, as you discuss virtually nothing else.....this obvious support of the legalization of incest marriage and polygamy becomes even more apparent.

other posters obviously can't either, somehow I'm not opposed to incest?

Like your claim that I said sex was a requirement of marriage?

Yet every time I demand you quote me saying as much......you try to change the topic.

Odd that. Its like you're holding us to one standard....but yourself to another.

I can't quote something you claim that I said you said, when no such claim was initially made.

And I can oppose potential problems without knowing how to legally stop the problem.

You are a shallow thinker, but any non OCD afflicted mind can easily see that.

Like I said- you just lied about what I said.

But then you don't have a problem with prevarication..

He's trolling. His sole purpose is to shut down threads like this.

I mean, after Boss' entire argument collapsed, they had to switch the conversation to something. As the whole 'killing homosexual marriage' bullshit wasn't working out too well.

Oh he is certainly trolling- but not to shut down this thread- he is as slimy a homophobe as Boss is- he just wants to consume the thread with parroting the Catholic League claims from 2003.

Doesn't this sound amazingly familiar? Yet I still haven't heard about Pops marrying his sister in Massachusetts in the last 12 years....

Commenting on this development is Catholic League president William Donohue:

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


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


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

 

[Syriusly]

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?

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?

The exact same argument that allows infertile cousins to marry, but not infertile siblings.

You reject any argument that doesn't support your straw man.

No point in pretending like you actually desire an answer- you just want to reject every answer other than the one you have created.

Because Wisconsin doesn't feel cousins are so closely related?

Got it.

But it is odd that in both cases the law seems to keep both from procreating. So why would Wisconsin deny same sex siblings.

The search for the States Compelling Interst continues.

Thanks

Wisconsin clearly doesn't care about procreation- since infertile siblings cannot marry- but infertile First cousins can marry.

The marriage laws do not prevent anyone from procreating- the law limits marriage for first cousins to those who cannot procreate.

The law doesn't allow siblings to marry whether they can procreate or not.

Bans on incestuous marriage are not based upon the possibility of procreation.

Logic simple enough for a 10 year old- yet too complex for homophobes.

If they don't care about it, why does the law make it impossible?

Do you ever think?

Wisconsin marriage law clearly requires no potential for procreation- since infertile siblings cannot marry- but infertile First cousins can marry.

The marriage laws do not prevent anyone from procreating- the law limits marriage for first cousins to those who cannot procreate.

The law doesn't allow siblings to marry whether they can procreate or not.

Bans on incestuous marriage are not based upon the possibility of procreation.

Logic simple enough for a 10 year old- yet too complex for homophobes.