SSM. Seeking middle ground

[RKMBrown]

Your accusation is that if my "brother in law" is allowed to marry then all hell will break loose and brothers and sisters will be getting married. It is, pure and simple, an attack on all gay people in this country. An attack on my brother in law is an attack on my family. Discussing is not an attack... comparing gay marriage to incest is. They are not the same. One does not lead to another. Marriage between close family members is not the same as marriage outside of close family members. Incest is a distinctly different issue. As is hang nails, toe fungus, termites and other such issues that have nothing to do with whether or not a state should be allowed to take away the rights of gay people. The states compelling interest in regulating incest is not the same as the states compelling interest in regulating gay couples.

I get it, if you have a family member that's a member of ISIS (not implying you do), I'm attacking you and your family by discussing my hatred of ISIS.

Discussing the issue is different then specifying the individual.

Compelling interests do not have to match to be valid.

Incorrect. It's like saying everyone from texas is slow. Oh your from texas?

WRT your example... It's like saying if we let jews get married in this country then that will open the door for incest. It's a way to insult all jews. Insulting all jews includes insults on jewish men and women that are family members. It's like saying if we let inter-racial marriages next they'll want incestual marriages. It's an insult on inter-racial couples that implies there's something wrong with inter-racial coupling, and if we're gonna let bad marriages happen like inter-racial marriages then next you'll want your incest too. It's an insult on the entire group, of which some people have family members.

FYI all I did in the other thread was imply you might want your parents to be married. Why do you see marriage as an insult?

It may insult Jews, but I cannot control what insults THEM. If discussing what may happen is off limits because someone MIGHT be insulted we better shut this site down.

And by the way, it seems several on your side of the isle don't have a problem with my argument.

I've drilled it down, and the arguments seem to be:

Incestuous marriage is currently illegal. I would remind you that only a few years ago same sex marriage was illegal. The state had no compelling government interest to deny it.

It goes againt tradition that siblings can marry. Until same sexes could marry, then that tradition does not hold water when applied to those heterosexual siblings that only want the benefits of a marriage (legal, financial). The argument to keep it illegal with same sex gay siblings has some merit, but then we have the paradox of denial of rights based on sexuality.

That is THE PARADOX and I have still not seen a cure for it that would meet the compelling state interest to deny argument.

Remember, the basis of the argument is not one my side came up with, it is the argument your side is SUCCESSFULLY using to allow SSM.

So again, what am I missing.

The argument against incest is not solely based on religious tradition. The argument against incest goes beyond religious tradition.

The argument against gay marriage is soley based on "judeo-christian religious tradition."

The argument against incest is harm to the possible babies that would result, and also harm to the family members who are married under the duress and pressure of family bonds. Dad marrying his daughter or son? Cmon... Using family bonds to force a marriage with a child... that's just plain wrong. Same with an older Brother using his family bond with his younger siblings to acquire a marriage.

All those are classical explanations for incest laws, none of those apply to two brothers marrying for financial benefit.

Asking me to open my mind to new concepts.......

Opens minds to new concepts. One of those being that marriage can be for financial benefit only.

Incest laws apply to two brothers as well. It's illegal. First you have to make incest between "brothers" legal then you can argue that brothers should be allowed to get married.

 

[RKMBrown]

If I'm not mistaken the actual reason incest is illegal is because it, or well inbreeding, causes a number of medial issues for any children conceived. I'm not in the mood to hunt down a study atm, but one can find evidence of inbreeding problems within a number of dog breeds.

Inbreeding is but one of the reasons that incest is illegal.

 

[RKMBrown]

Your accusation is that if my "brother in law" is allowed to marry then all hell will break loose and brothers and sisters will be getting married. It is, pure and simple, an attack on all gay people in this country. An attack on my brother in law is an attack on my family. Discussing is not an attack... comparing gay marriage to incest is. They are not the same. One does not lead to another. Marriage between close family members is not the same as marriage outside of close family members. Incest is a distinctly different issue. As is hang nails, toe fungus, termites and other such issues that have nothing to do with whether or not a state should be allowed to take away the rights of gay people. The states compelling interest in regulating incest is not the same as the states compelling interest in regulating gay couples.

I get it, if you have a family member that's a member of ISIS (not implying you do), I'm attacking you and your family by discussing my hatred of ISIS.

Discussing the issue is different then specifying the individual.

Compelling interests do not have to match to be valid.

Incorrect. It's like saying everyone from texas is slow. Oh your from texas?

WRT your example... It's like saying if we let jews get married in this country then that will open the door for incest. It's a way to insult all jews. Insulting all jews includes insults on jewish men and women that are family members. It's like saying if we let inter-racial marriages next they'll want incestual marriages. It's an insult on inter-racial couples that implies there's something wrong with inter-racial coupling, and if we're gonna let bad marriages happen like inter-racial marriages then next you'll want your incest too. It's an insult on the entire group, of which some people have family members.

FYI all I did in the other thread was imply you might want your parents to be married. Why do you see marriage as an insult?

It may insult Jews, but I cannot control what insults THEM. If discussing what may happen is off limits because someone MIGHT be insulted we better shut this site down.

And by the way, it seems several on your side of the isle don't have a problem with my argument.

I've drilled it down, and the arguments seem to be:

Incestuous marriage is currently illegal. I would remind you that only a few years ago same sex marriage was illegal. The state had no compelling government interest to deny it.

It goes againt tradition that siblings can marry. Until same sexes could marry, then that tradition does not hold water when applied to those heterosexual siblings that only want the benefits of a marriage (legal, financial). The argument to keep it illegal with same sex gay siblings has some merit, but then we have the paradox of denial of rights based on sexuality.

That is THE PARADOX and I have still not seen a cure for it that would meet the compelling state interest to deny argument.

Remember, the basis of the argument is not one my side came up with, it is the argument your side is SUCCESSFULLY using to allow SSM.

So again, what am I missing.

The argument against incest is not solely based on religious tradition. The argument against incest goes beyond religious tradition.

The argument against gay marriage is soley based on "judeo-christian religious tradition."

The argument against incest is harm to the possible babies that would result, and also harm to the family members who are married under the duress and pressure of family bonds. Dad marrying his daughter or son? Cmon... Using family bonds to force a marriage with a child... that's just plain wrong. Same with an older Brother using his family bond with his younger siblings to acquire a marriage.

All those are classical explanations for incest laws, none of those apply to two brothers marrying for financial benefit.

Asking me to open my mind to new concepts.......

Opens minds to new concepts. One of those being that marriage can be for financial benefit only.

Incorrect. Gay people do not open the mind to incest. If you were already interested in incest that has nothing to do with gay people.

 

[dcraelin]

I think Pop's plan has a lot of merit. It would get govt. completely out of the love/relationship business. Liberals and fags should love it.

I don't think the traditional marriage, one man one woman, will be enforceable. There will be organizations, churches that will perform any wedding ceremony if asked. But that's okay, since most of society knows what traditional marriage is. Gays will say they are married but it will be like the person that buys a Rolex for $10 in Times Square.

I offer some amendments:
1. No grandfather clause. Once the bill is passed everyone has to apply for the new civil union card. Everyone gets a card, like a drivers license.
2. No limit to who or the amount of adults entering into a single union.
3. If anyone no longer wants to be in a union they turn in their card. Individuals will be responsible for hiring lawyers and private arbitrators to negotiate the split. No more divorce courts. Once the split is negotiated it is filed and if an ex reneges the offended party or parties can file a civil suit.
4. People can choose not to apply for a union card and only be married, but their union will not be recognized by any govt. agency.

I can't find anything completely objectionable to your amendments.

another amendment should be that there can be no tax benefits to relationship status....this would make things fair for single people.

 

[Pop23]

I get it, if you have a family member that's a member of ISIS (not implying you do), I'm attacking you and your family by discussing my hatred of ISIS.

Discussing the issue is different then specifying the individual.

Compelling interests do not have to match to be valid.

Incorrect. It's like saying everyone from texas is slow. Oh your from texas?

WRT your example... It's like saying if we let jews get married in this country then that will open the door for incest. It's a way to insult all jews. Insulting all jews includes insults on jewish men and women that are family members. It's like saying if we let inter-racial marriages next they'll want incestual marriages. It's an insult on inter-racial couples that implies there's something wrong with inter-racial coupling, and if we're gonna let bad marriages happen like inter-racial marriages then next you'll want your incest too. It's an insult on the entire group, of which some people have family members.

FYI all I did in the other thread was imply you might want your parents to be married. Why do you see marriage as an insult?

It may insult Jews, but I cannot control what insults THEM. If discussing what may happen is off limits because someone MIGHT be insulted we better shut this site down.

And by the way, it seems several on your side of the isle don't have a problem with my argument.

I've drilled it down, and the arguments seem to be:

Incestuous marriage is currently illegal. I would remind you that only a few years ago same sex marriage was illegal. The state had no compelling government interest to deny it.

It goes againt tradition that siblings can marry. Until same sexes could marry, then that tradition does not hold water when applied to those heterosexual siblings that only want the benefits of a marriage (legal, financial). The argument to keep it illegal with same sex gay siblings has some merit, but then we have the paradox of denial of rights based on sexuality.

That is THE PARADOX and I have still not seen a cure for it that would meet the compelling state interest to deny argument.

Remember, the basis of the argument is not one my side came up with, it is the argument your side is SUCCESSFULLY using to allow SSM.

So again, what am I missing.

The argument against incest is not solely based on religious tradition. The argument against incest goes beyond religious tradition.

The argument against gay marriage is soley based on "judeo-christian religious tradition."

The argument against incest is harm to the possible babies that would result, and also harm to the family members who are married under the duress and pressure of family bonds. Dad marrying his daughter or son? Cmon... Using family bonds to force a marriage with a child... that's just plain wrong. Same with an older Brother using his family bond with his younger siblings to acquire a marriage.

All those are classical explanations for incest laws, none of those apply to two brothers marrying for financial benefit.

Asking me to open my mind to new concepts.......

Opens minds to new concepts. One of those being that marriage can be for financial benefit only.

Incest laws apply to two brothers as well. It's illegal. First you have to make incest between "brothers" legal then you can argue that brothers should be allowed to get married.

And so the paradox continues.

Now we have a strong argument since we are excluding entire demographic groups from marrying (only opposing genders may marry), soon the demographics change.

You could exclude based on demographics. Soon you can't. What was considered incest, in the classical meaning, discrimates against another demographic that wants NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX.

What compelling interest would the state argue in excluding this demographic group the benefits of marriage?

Surely you can't argue tradition, that and the argument of inbreeding become moot when the siblings are heterosexual.

 

[Pop23]

I get it, if you have a family member that's a member of ISIS (not implying you do), I'm attacking you and your family by discussing my hatred of ISIS.

Discussing the issue is different then specifying the individual.

Compelling interests do not have to match to be valid.

Incorrect. It's like saying everyone from texas is slow. Oh your from texas?

WRT your example... It's like saying if we let jews get married in this country then that will open the door for incest. It's a way to insult all jews. Insulting all jews includes insults on jewish men and women that are family members. It's like saying if we let inter-racial marriages next they'll want incestual marriages. It's an insult on inter-racial couples that implies there's something wrong with inter-racial coupling, and if we're gonna let bad marriages happen like inter-racial marriages then next you'll want your incest too. It's an insult on the entire group, of which some people have family members.

FYI all I did in the other thread was imply you might want your parents to be married. Why do you see marriage as an insult?

It may insult Jews, but I cannot control what insults THEM. If discussing what may happen is off limits because someone MIGHT be insulted we better shut this site down.

And by the way, it seems several on your side of the isle don't have a problem with my argument.

I've drilled it down, and the arguments seem to be:

Incestuous marriage is currently illegal. I would remind you that only a few years ago same sex marriage was illegal. The state had no compelling government interest to deny it.

It goes againt tradition that siblings can marry. Until same sexes could marry, then that tradition does not hold water when applied to those heterosexual siblings that only want the benefits of a marriage (legal, financial). The argument to keep it illegal with same sex gay siblings has some merit, but then we have the paradox of denial of rights based on sexuality.

That is THE PARADOX and I have still not seen a cure for it that would meet the compelling state interest to deny argument.

Remember, the basis of the argument is not one my side came up with, it is the argument your side is SUCCESSFULLY using to allow SSM.

So again, what am I missing.

The argument against incest is not solely based on religious tradition. The argument against incest goes beyond religious tradition.

The argument against gay marriage is soley based on "judeo-christian religious tradition."

The argument against incest is harm to the possible babies that would result, and also harm to the family members who are married under the duress and pressure of family bonds. Dad marrying his daughter or son? Cmon... Using family bonds to force a marriage with a child... that's just plain wrong. Same with an older Brother using his family bond with his younger siblings to acquire a marriage.

All those are classical explanations for incest laws, none of those apply to two brothers marrying for financial benefit.

Asking me to open my mind to new concepts.......

Opens minds to new concepts. One of those being that marriage can be for financial benefit only.

Incorrect. Gay people do not open the mind to incest. If you were already interested in incest that has nothing to do with gay people.

Again you argue the traditional view of incest. Traditions are moot because of the compelling state interest argument.

 

[RKMBrown]

Incorrect. It's like saying everyone from texas is slow. Oh your from texas?

WRT your example... It's like saying if we let jews get married in this country then that will open the door for incest. It's a way to insult all jews. Insulting all jews includes insults on jewish men and women that are family members. It's like saying if we let inter-racial marriages next they'll want incestual marriages. It's an insult on inter-racial couples that implies there's something wrong with inter-racial coupling, and if we're gonna let bad marriages happen like inter-racial marriages then next you'll want your incest too. It's an insult on the entire group, of which some people have family members.

FYI all I did in the other thread was imply you might want your parents to be married. Why do you see marriage as an insult?

It may insult Jews, but I cannot control what insults THEM. If discussing what may happen is off limits because someone MIGHT be insulted we better shut this site down.

And by the way, it seems several on your side of the isle don't have a problem with my argument.

I've drilled it down, and the arguments seem to be:

Incestuous marriage is currently illegal. I would remind you that only a few years ago same sex marriage was illegal. The state had no compelling government interest to deny it.

It goes againt tradition that siblings can marry. Until same sexes could marry, then that tradition does not hold water when applied to those heterosexual siblings that only want the benefits of a marriage (legal, financial). The argument to keep it illegal with same sex gay siblings has some merit, but then we have the paradox of denial of rights based on sexuality.

That is THE PARADOX and I have still not seen a cure for it that would meet the compelling state interest to deny argument.

Remember, the basis of the argument is not one my side came up with, it is the argument your side is SUCCESSFULLY using to allow SSM.

So again, what am I missing.

The argument against incest is not solely based on religious tradition. The argument against incest goes beyond religious tradition.

The argument against gay marriage is soley based on "judeo-christian religious tradition."

The argument against incest is harm to the possible babies that would result, and also harm to the family members who are married under the duress and pressure of family bonds. Dad marrying his daughter or son? Cmon... Using family bonds to force a marriage with a child... that's just plain wrong. Same with an older Brother using his family bond with his younger siblings to acquire a marriage.

All those are classical explanations for incest laws, none of those apply to two brothers marrying for financial benefit.

Asking me to open my mind to new concepts.......

Opens minds to new concepts. One of those being that marriage can be for financial benefit only.

Incest laws apply to two brothers as well. It's illegal. First you have to make incest between "brothers" legal then you can argue that brothers should be allowed to get married.

And so the paradox continues.

Now we have a strong argument since we are excluding entire demographic groups from marrying (only opposing genders may marry), soon the demographics change.

You could exclude based on demographics. Soon you can't. What was considered incest, in the classical meaning, discrimates against another demographic that wants NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX.

What compelling interest would the state argue in excluding this demographic group the benefits of marriage?

Surely you can't argue tradition, that and the argument of inbreeding become moot when the siblings are heterosexual.

No demographics does not mean incest. Your paradox is self made.

 

[RKMBrown]

Incorrect. It's like saying everyone from texas is slow. Oh your from texas?

WRT your example... It's like saying if we let jews get married in this country then that will open the door for incest. It's a way to insult all jews. Insulting all jews includes insults on jewish men and women that are family members. It's like saying if we let inter-racial marriages next they'll want incestual marriages. It's an insult on inter-racial couples that implies there's something wrong with inter-racial coupling, and if we're gonna let bad marriages happen like inter-racial marriages then next you'll want your incest too. It's an insult on the entire group, of which some people have family members.

FYI all I did in the other thread was imply you might want your parents to be married. Why do you see marriage as an insult?

It may insult Jews, but I cannot control what insults THEM. If discussing what may happen is off limits because someone MIGHT be insulted we better shut this site down.

And by the way, it seems several on your side of the isle don't have a problem with my argument.

I've drilled it down, and the arguments seem to be:

Incestuous marriage is currently illegal. I would remind you that only a few years ago same sex marriage was illegal. The state had no compelling government interest to deny it.

It goes againt tradition that siblings can marry. Until same sexes could marry, then that tradition does not hold water when applied to those heterosexual siblings that only want the benefits of a marriage (legal, financial). The argument to keep it illegal with same sex gay siblings has some merit, but then we have the paradox of denial of rights based on sexuality.

That is THE PARADOX and I have still not seen a cure for it that would meet the compelling state interest to deny argument.

Remember, the basis of the argument is not one my side came up with, it is the argument your side is SUCCESSFULLY using to allow SSM.

So again, what am I missing.

The argument against incest is not solely based on religious tradition. The argument against incest goes beyond religious tradition.

The argument against gay marriage is soley based on "judeo-christian religious tradition."

The argument against incest is harm to the possible babies that would result, and also harm to the family members who are married under the duress and pressure of family bonds. Dad marrying his daughter or son? Cmon... Using family bonds to force a marriage with a child... that's just plain wrong. Same with an older Brother using his family bond with his younger siblings to acquire a marriage.

All those are classical explanations for incest laws, none of those apply to two brothers marrying for financial benefit.

Asking me to open my mind to new concepts.......

Opens minds to new concepts. One of those being that marriage can be for financial benefit only.

Incorrect. Gay people do not open the mind to incest. If you were already interested in incest that has nothing to do with gay people.

Again you argue the traditional view of incest. Traditions are moot because of the compelling state interest argument.

Incorrect. Incest is against the law. Gay is not.

 

[Ravi]

Incest ITSELF is illegal.

Only in the classic sense. Two heterosexual brothers would not marry for sexual reasons.

It's a paradox.

Not true. Incest is illegal in the "legal" sense. Not just in the traditional sense. Now, if you were to make incest legal... then you would have an argument that the arguments made by gays could now be used to allow marriages between siblings. However, incest is ILLEGAL. Thus, the argument does not apply.

Being gay used to be illegal. Then it was made legal... thus opening up the argument for gay marriage.

Marriage between consenting adults is not a paradox. Authoritarians claiming the liberty to harm the liberties of others... yeah that's a paradox.

Off topic, but my daughter and I watched the moving about Alan Turing last weekend. She was surprised to find out that being gay was once illegal in the UK. She said, well, at least it was never illegal in the US....

 

[Pop23]

It may insult Jews, but I cannot control what insults THEM. If discussing what may happen is off limits because someone MIGHT be insulted we better shut this site down.

And by the way, it seems several on your side of the isle don't have a problem with my argument.

I've drilled it down, and the arguments seem to be:

Incestuous marriage is currently illegal. I would remind you that only a few years ago same sex marriage was illegal. The state had no compelling government interest to deny it.

It goes againt tradition that siblings can marry. Until same sexes could marry, then that tradition does not hold water when applied to those heterosexual siblings that only want the benefits of a marriage (legal, financial). The argument to keep it illegal with same sex gay siblings has some merit, but then we have the paradox of denial of rights based on sexuality.

That is THE PARADOX and I have still not seen a cure for it that would meet the compelling state interest to deny argument.

Remember, the basis of the argument is not one my side came up with, it is the argument your side is SUCCESSFULLY using to allow SSM.

So again, what am I missing.

The argument against incest is not solely based on religious tradition. The argument against incest goes beyond religious tradition.

The argument against gay marriage is soley based on "judeo-christian religious tradition."

The argument against incest is harm to the possible babies that would result, and also harm to the family members who are married under the duress and pressure of family bonds. Dad marrying his daughter or son? Cmon... Using family bonds to force a marriage with a child... that's just plain wrong. Same with an older Brother using his family bond with his younger siblings to acquire a marriage.

All those are classical explanations for incest laws, none of those apply to two brothers marrying for financial benefit.

Asking me to open my mind to new concepts.......

Opens minds to new concepts. One of those being that marriage can be for financial benefit only.

Incest laws apply to two brothers as well. It's illegal. First you have to make incest between "brothers" legal then you can argue that brothers should be allowed to get married.

And so the paradox continues.

Now we have a strong argument since we are excluding entire demographic groups from marrying (only opposing genders may marry), soon the demographics change.

You could exclude based on demographics. Soon you can't. What was considered incest, in the classical meaning, discrimates against another demographic that wants NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX.

What compelling interest would the state argue in excluding this demographic group the benefits of marriage?

Surely you can't argue tradition, that and the argument of inbreeding become moot when the siblings are heterosexual.

No demographics does not mean incest. Your paradox is self made.

I knew it was probably over your head.

 

[Pop23]

Incest ITSELF is illegal.

Only in the classic sense. Two heterosexual brothers would not marry for sexual reasons.

It's a paradox.

Not true. Incest is illegal in the "legal" sense. Not just in the traditional sense. Now, if you were to make incest legal... then you would have an argument that the arguments made by gays could now be used to allow marriages between siblings. However, incest is ILLEGAL. Thus, the argument does not apply.

Being gay used to be illegal. Then it was made legal... thus opening up the argument for gay marriage.

Marriage between consenting adults is not a paradox. Authoritarians claiming the liberty to harm the liberties of others... yeah that's a paradox.

Off topic, but my daughter and I watched the moving about Alan Turing last weekend. She was surprised to find out that being gay was once illegal in the UK. She said, well, at least it was never illegal in the US....

Good movie.

 

[RKMBrown]

Incest ITSELF is illegal.

Only in the classic sense. Two heterosexual brothers would not marry for sexual reasons.

It's a paradox.

Not true. Incest is illegal in the "legal" sense. Not just in the traditional sense. Now, if you were to make incest legal... then you would have an argument that the arguments made by gays could now be used to allow marriages between siblings. However, incest is ILLEGAL. Thus, the argument does not apply.

Being gay used to be illegal. Then it was made legal... thus opening up the argument for gay marriage.

Marriage between consenting adults is not a paradox. Authoritarians claiming the liberty to harm the liberties of others... yeah that's a paradox.

Off topic, but my daughter and I watched the moving about Alan Turing last weekend. She was surprised to find out that being gay was once illegal in the UK. She said, well, at least it was never illegal in the US....

It was a good movie... Yeah it's hard to believe today that at one point in our history gays could be put to death for practicing gay sex acts. Nutz.

 

[RKMBrown]

The argument against incest is not solely based on religious tradition. The argument against incest goes beyond religious tradition.

The argument against gay marriage is soley based on "judeo-christian religious tradition."

The argument against incest is harm to the possible babies that would result, and also harm to the family members who are married under the duress and pressure of family bonds. Dad marrying his daughter or son? Cmon... Using family bonds to force a marriage with a child... that's just plain wrong. Same with an older Brother using his family bond with his younger siblings to acquire a marriage.

All those are classical explanations for incest laws, none of those apply to two brothers marrying for financial benefit.

Asking me to open my mind to new concepts.......

Opens minds to new concepts. One of those being that marriage can be for financial benefit only.

Incest laws apply to two brothers as well. It's illegal. First you have to make incest between "brothers" legal then you can argue that brothers should be allowed to get married.

And so the paradox continues.

Now we have a strong argument since we are excluding entire demographic groups from marrying (only opposing genders may marry), soon the demographics change.

You could exclude based on demographics. Soon you can't. What was considered incest, in the classical meaning, discrimates against another demographic that wants NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX.

What compelling interest would the state argue in excluding this demographic group the benefits of marriage?

Surely you can't argue tradition, that and the argument of inbreeding become moot when the siblings are heterosexual.

No demographics does not mean incest. Your paradox is self made.

I knew it was probably over your head.

No, it's in your head.

 

[Pop23]

All those are classical explanations for incest laws, none of those apply to two brothers marrying for financial benefit.

Asking me to open my mind to new concepts.......

Opens minds to new concepts. One of those being that marriage can be for financial benefit only.

Incest laws apply to two brothers as well. It's illegal. First you have to make incest between "brothers" legal then you can argue that brothers should be allowed to get married.

And so the paradox continues.

Now we have a strong argument since we are excluding entire demographic groups from marrying (only opposing genders may marry), soon the demographics change.

You could exclude based on demographics. Soon you can't. What was considered incest, in the classical meaning, discrimates against another demographic that wants NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX.

What compelling interest would the state argue in excluding this demographic group the benefits of marriage?

Surely you can't argue tradition, that and the argument of inbreeding become moot when the siblings are heterosexual.

No demographics does not mean incest. Your paradox is self made.

I knew it was probably over your head.

No, it's in your head.

And soon the societal norm.

Same sex heterosexual marriage will come first. Any argument why it can't!

 

[Ravi]

Incest laws apply to two brothers as well. It's illegal. First you have to make incest between "brothers" legal then you can argue that brothers should be allowed to get married.

And so the paradox continues.

Now we have a strong argument since we are excluding entire demographic groups from marrying (only opposing genders may marry), soon the demographics change.

You could exclude based on demographics. Soon you can't. What was considered incest, in the classical meaning, discrimates against another demographic that wants NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX.

What compelling interest would the state argue in excluding this demographic group the benefits of marriage?

Surely you can't argue tradition, that and the argument of inbreeding become moot when the siblings are heterosexual.

No demographics does not mean incest. Your paradox is self made.

I knew it was probably over your head.

No, it's in your head.

And soon the societal norm.

Same sex heterosexual marriage will come first. Any argument why it can't!

That isn't incest.

 

[RKMBrown]

Incest laws apply to two brothers as well. It's illegal. First you have to make incest between "brothers" legal then you can argue that brothers should be allowed to get married.

And so the paradox continues.

Now we have a strong argument since we are excluding entire demographic groups from marrying (only opposing genders may marry), soon the demographics change.

You could exclude based on demographics. Soon you can't. What was considered incest, in the classical meaning, discrimates against another demographic that wants NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX.

What compelling interest would the state argue in excluding this demographic group the benefits of marriage?

Surely you can't argue tradition, that and the argument of inbreeding become moot when the siblings are heterosexual.

No demographics does not mean incest. Your paradox is self made.

I knew it was probably over your head.

No, it's in your head.

And soon the societal norm.

Same sex heterosexual marriage will come first. Any argument why it can't!

The sun can explode tomorrow. Does not mean it's gonna happen.

 

[Pop23]

And so the paradox continues.

Now we have a strong argument since we are excluding entire demographic groups from marrying (only opposing genders may marry), soon the demographics change.

You could exclude based on demographics. Soon you can't. What was considered incest, in the classical meaning, discrimates against another demographic that wants NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX.

What compelling interest would the state argue in excluding this demographic group the benefits of marriage?

Surely you can't argue tradition, that and the argument of inbreeding become moot when the siblings are heterosexual.

No demographics does not mean incest. Your paradox is self made.

I knew it was probably over your head.

No, it's in your head.

And soon the societal norm.

Same sex heterosexual marriage will come first. Any argument why it can't!

That isn't incest.

So then, no argument, you agree, same sex heterosexual marriage will be legal if the USSC rules in favor of same sex marriage?

Just want to be clear

 

[Pop23]

And so the paradox continues.

Now we have a strong argument since we are excluding entire demographic groups from marrying (only opposing genders may marry), soon the demographics change.

You could exclude based on demographics. Soon you can't. What was considered incest, in the classical meaning, discrimates against another demographic that wants NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX.

What compelling interest would the state argue in excluding this demographic group the benefits of marriage?

Surely you can't argue tradition, that and the argument of inbreeding become moot when the siblings are heterosexual.

No demographics does not mean incest. Your paradox is self made.

I knew it was probably over your head.

No, it's in your head.

And soon the societal norm.

Same sex heterosexual marriage will come first. Any argument why it can't!

The sun can explode tomorrow. Does not mean it's gonna happen.

Explain why? It will be legal you understand, Right?

 

[Ravi]

No demographics does not mean incest. Your paradox is self made.

I knew it was probably over your head.

No, it's in your head.

And soon the societal norm.

Same sex heterosexual marriage will come first. Any argument why it can't!

That isn't incest.

So then, no argument, you agree, same sex heterosexual marriage will be legal if the USSC rules in favor of same sex marriage?

Just want to be clear

It should be, yes. But you have been pretending this will lead to incest being legalized or some such nonsense.

 

[Pop23]

I knew it was probably over your head.

No, it's in your head.

And soon the societal norm.

Same sex heterosexual marriage will come first. Any argument why it can't!

That isn't incest.

So then, no argument, you agree, same sex heterosexual marriage will be legal if the USSC rules in favor of same sex marriage?

Just want to be clear

It should be, yes. But you have been pretending this will lead to incest being legalized or some such nonsense.

Ok, so two same sex heterosexual siblings might wish to ener a marriage contract simply for the tax breaks, married couple insurance and such.

What would you deny them that benefit since they are hetrosexual? They engage in sex with those of the opposite sex (and there is nothing in marriage law to stop them from dating)

The traditional meaning of incest is sexual in nature. These are straight siblings. They don't.


There's really no reason to deny them and the state would have to prove a compelling reason.

What would that be?