Pop23
Gold Member
Look dblack , Lets drill this down as to what Government did to us. I am going to use "Loving" and it's opening up Interracial Marriage and the arguments against it, and why the arguments were bogus, and "Obergfell" and why some arguments against it are not bogus.
1. "Loving" would lead to Polygamy.
Bogus, as marriage remained an institution in which it remained "one man and one woman, not too closely related" Thus still limiting the number to 2 because the children raised with in the relationship would have the stability of only having two parents and sex was implied by the limiting factor of "not too closely related". There is a rational legal basis for limiting the number to 2, and that they not be too closely related
Not Bogus: In Obergfell, the rational legal basis for limiting the number or that they "not be too closely related" lost this as same sex couples cannot have offspring, no matter how hard they try, or no matter how many participate. The argument that Marriage must be limited to a set number of participants fails. Then the argument is, we can't allow this because opposite sex multi partner units might want the same right. See the folly of the argument. You just denied a right, based on nothing more than that other unit can procreate? Isn't this the failed argument in Obergfell? What is the States Compelling Interest would their be in denial of this right>
2. "Loving" will lead to Incest. Those too closely related marrying
Bogus: See #1
Not Bogus. In Obergfell, much like above, the rational legal basis, limiting Marriage to "One Man and One Woman, not too closely related" also lost the rational legal basis. Two same sex individuals cannot produce offspring, whether related to closely or not. But then the argument could be made that, because two opposite sex, closely related individuals can have children, we can deny the same sex couple. See the folly? It again is denying a right to one set based on the ability for another sets to have offspring. Again, the exact same failed argument in Obergfell.
Additionally, you need to come to grips with another reality. Marriage does not require sex to be a recognized union, nor Love, nor much else. Marriage is simply defined as what the couple wants it to be. And as it applies to Sexual Incest, it can still remain Illegal within a marriage as marriage is not predicated on Sex.
State sanctioned "Marriage" is, in actuality, a pretty sterile legal entity, not much different than two family members creating an S.Corp or an LLC.
Neither Sil or I advocate for Polygamy nor Incestuous Marriage, but neither of us, having analysed this, can come up with the rational legal basis that either CAN BE DENIED under current law.
1. "Loving" would lead to Polygamy.
Bogus, as marriage remained an institution in which it remained "one man and one woman, not too closely related" Thus still limiting the number to 2 because the children raised with in the relationship would have the stability of only having two parents and sex was implied by the limiting factor of "not too closely related". There is a rational legal basis for limiting the number to 2, and that they not be too closely related
Not Bogus: In Obergfell, the rational legal basis for limiting the number or that they "not be too closely related" lost this as same sex couples cannot have offspring, no matter how hard they try, or no matter how many participate. The argument that Marriage must be limited to a set number of participants fails. Then the argument is, we can't allow this because opposite sex multi partner units might want the same right. See the folly of the argument. You just denied a right, based on nothing more than that other unit can procreate? Isn't this the failed argument in Obergfell? What is the States Compelling Interest would their be in denial of this right>
2. "Loving" will lead to Incest. Those too closely related marrying
Bogus: See #1
Not Bogus. In Obergfell, much like above, the rational legal basis, limiting Marriage to "One Man and One Woman, not too closely related" also lost the rational legal basis. Two same sex individuals cannot produce offspring, whether related to closely or not. But then the argument could be made that, because two opposite sex, closely related individuals can have children, we can deny the same sex couple. See the folly? It again is denying a right to one set based on the ability for another sets to have offspring. Again, the exact same failed argument in Obergfell.
Additionally, you need to come to grips with another reality. Marriage does not require sex to be a recognized union, nor Love, nor much else. Marriage is simply defined as what the couple wants it to be. And as it applies to Sexual Incest, it can still remain Illegal within a marriage as marriage is not predicated on Sex.
State sanctioned "Marriage" is, in actuality, a pretty sterile legal entity, not much different than two family members creating an S.Corp or an LLC.
Neither Sil or I advocate for Polygamy nor Incestuous Marriage, but neither of us, having analysed this, can come up with the rational legal basis that either CAN BE DENIED under current law.
Last edited:
