The first same sex incestuous marriage

[Pop23]

The OP is negligent not to cover the role of eunuchs.

Faggots are filth.

Oh dudester, do you REALLY want to go there?

Eunuchs were the purest conceived beings since Eve.

. What in tarnation is a Eunuch, a Eunuchcorn without it's horn or had it's horn cut off ???? ROTFLMBO.

Koodos! Those horns all got mixed together in the beginning.

. Regardless of what happens, the human body was designed by God in a specific way, and it was intended to be used in those specific ways. Going against the grain always brings consequences in some forms or another, and such things have been documented greatly over time, but due to the humans thinking that they are smarter than God, well they bring great suffering onto themselves in many ways, and they are the only ones to blame for it, because the information is not hidden from them and never was. Everything is about people's mental health & physical well being, and it should be treated in those terms always.

The OP is negligent not to cover the role of eunuchs.

Faggots are filth.

Oh dudester, do you REALLY want to go there?

Eunuchs were the purest conceived beings since Eve.

. What in tarnation is a Eunuch, a Eunuchcorn without it's horn or had it's horn cut off ???? ROTFLMBO.

Koodos! Those horns all got mixed together in the beginning.

. Regardless of what happens, the human body was designed by God in a specific way, and it was intended to be used in those specific ways. Going against the grain always brings consequences in some forms or another, and such things have been documented greatly over time, but due to the humans thinking that they are smarter than God, well they bring great suffering onto themselves in many ways, and they are the only ones to blame for it, because the information is not hidden from them and never was. Everything is about people's mental health & physical well being, and it should be treated in those terms always.

I think there is some truth to be had here, especially in the realm of a discussion of incest within marriage.

Incest as a biological term is only relevant to opposite sex participants. Same sex couplings of family members do not produce adverse biological effects.

The law, and it's now protections under the 14th amendment violates the equal protection standards of same sex family members for no sound legal reason.

I find it interesting that it is because of the modification brought on by Obergfell, that being the elimination of marriage being "between a man and a woman" that marriage has no implication that sex has a place in the law.

Sex is certainly not a requirement in any marriage law that I can find, and the law itself contains no explanation as to why the parties cannot be closely related.

Perplexing to say the least

 

[Silhouette]

The law, and it's now protections under the 14th amendment violates the equal protection standards of same sex family members for no sound legal reason.

I find it interesting that it is because of the modification brought on by Obergfell, that being the elimination of marriage being "between a man and a woman" that marriage has no implication that sex has a place in the law.

Sex is certainly not a requirement in any marriage law that I can find, and the law itself contains no explanation as to why the parties cannot be closely related....Perplexing to say the least

And I can't wait to see the assholes on the USSC liberal wing sort it all out. It killed their colleague Scalia IMHO, the decision last year was so spontaneous without any forward thought to how it might affect marriage into the future and society as a whole and all the complex issues spiraling off of marriage.

Not to mention how it might affect children not having either a mother or father anymore from marriage..

 

[Montrovant]

LOL- just can't help pointing out the rest of the story:

Court records show this isn’t the first time Patricia has married one of her own children.


She also married one of her sons in 2008.

Which according to 'Tipsy' logic means

Of course a heterosexual is going to fuck her son. Thats why heterosexuals have children. They are perverts

Why is this such a problem to you?

Can you name a single state law that makes sex a requirement of marriage?

Why is that such a problem for me?

There is also no legal assumption that a marriage will not include sex.

More importantly though, I have a problem with the issue of undue influence.

Mothers and fathers are in position of authority over their children that could easily- and has been way to often- abused in relationships.

That is the primary reason for the ban on such marriages.

But if you want to go to court to argue for your right to marry your daughter- I support your right to go to court to seek redress.

Undue influence can occur in relationships of unrelated persons as well.

That's why a legal contract is only legitimate if both parties consent. That consent is not your, or my concern.

You fought this as a 14th amendment right, now you wish denial of that right to others.

You've become quite the bigot.

You understand that Incest can still be illegal, right?

So much for your argument

LOL- you think that incest should be legal too? If not you are a bigot- right?

Please supply the quote. I've said many times that incest should remain illegal.

Our government has a duty to keep bloodlines strong.

Your reaching because you can't defend your bigotry.

How fucking cute

Are you aware that in some states incest is defined not only as sexual contact but also as marriage between close relations? Are you aware that in some states adopted children are specifically included in incest laws?

Incest laws are not only about sex or about bloodlines.

 

[Silhouette]

Are you aware that in some states incest is defined not only as sexual contact but also as marriage between close relations? Are you aware that in some states adopted children are specifically included in incest laws?

Incest laws are not only about sex or about bloodlines.

But they DO restrict the freedoms of a different type of sexual orientation and intimate lifestyle choices between consenting adults; so they're right in your wheelhouse for protection, yes Montrovant?

 

[Pop23]

Why is this such a problem to you?

Can you name a single state law that makes sex a requirement of marriage?

Why is that such a problem for me?

There is also no legal assumption that a marriage will not include sex.

More importantly though, I have a problem with the issue of undue influence.

Mothers and fathers are in position of authority over their children that could easily- and has been way to often- abused in relationships.

That is the primary reason for the ban on such marriages.

But if you want to go to court to argue for your right to marry your daughter- I support your right to go to court to seek redress.

Undue influence can occur in relationships of unrelated persons as well.

That's why a legal contract is only legitimate if both parties consent. That consent is not your, or my concern.

You fought this as a 14th amendment right, now you wish denial of that right to others.

You've become quite the bigot.

You understand that Incest can still be illegal, right?

So much for your argument

LOL- you think that incest should be legal too? If not you are a bigot- right?

Please supply the quote. I've said many times that incest should remain illegal.

Our government has a duty to keep bloodlines strong.

Your reaching because you can't defend your bigotry.

How fucking cute

Are you aware that in some states incest is defined not only as sexual contact but also as marriage between close relations? Are you aware that in some states adopted children are specifically included in incest laws?

Incest laws are not only about sex or about bloodlines.

I am aware, and that those laws were made at a time when marriage law contained a line simalar to this:

"Between a Man and a Woman, not to closely related", thus implying a sexual relationship in which the production of a child was possible.

Those laws are silly not that the law were modified to read "marriage is between two people, not closely related"

Unless you can find a State law that states that Sexual contact is a requirement for a valid Marriage, then you, and those incest laws are unjust and violates the 14th amendment.

 

[Montrovant]

Are you aware that in some states incest is defined not only as sexual contact but also as marriage between close relations? Are you aware that in some states adopted children are specifically included in incest laws?

Incest laws are not only about sex or about bloodlines.

But they DO restrict the freedoms of a different type of sexual orientation and intimate lifestyle choices between consenting adults; so they're right in your wheelhouse for protection, yes Montrovant?

You don't even know what constitutes a sexual orientation, so you might want to stay out of any conversation which includes them.

 

[Montrovant]

Why is that such a problem for me?

There is also no legal assumption that a marriage will not include sex.

More importantly though, I have a problem with the issue of undue influence.

Mothers and fathers are in position of authority over their children that could easily- and has been way to often- abused in relationships.

That is the primary reason for the ban on such marriages.

But if you want to go to court to argue for your right to marry your daughter- I support your right to go to court to seek redress.

Undue influence can occur in relationships of unrelated persons as well.

That's why a legal contract is only legitimate if both parties consent. That consent is not your, or my concern.

You fought this as a 14th amendment right, now you wish denial of that right to others.

You've become quite the bigot.

You understand that Incest can still be illegal, right?

So much for your argument

LOL- you think that incest should be legal too? If not you are a bigot- right?

Please supply the quote. I've said many times that incest should remain illegal.

Our government has a duty to keep bloodlines strong.

Your reaching because you can't defend your bigotry.

How fucking cute

Are you aware that in some states incest is defined not only as sexual contact but also as marriage between close relations? Are you aware that in some states adopted children are specifically included in incest laws?

Incest laws are not only about sex or about bloodlines.

I am aware, and those laws were made at a time when marriage law contained a line simalar to this:

"Between a Man and a Woman, not to closely related", thus implying a sexual relationship in which the production of a child was possible.

Those laws are silly not that the law were modified to read "marriage is between two people, not closely related"

Unless you can find a State law that states that Sexual contact is a requirement for a valid Marriage, then you, and those incest laws are unjust and violates the 14th amendment.

Why does the possibility of a child matter if the incestuous relationship is with an adopted child? By your reasoning that wouldn't be important, yet there are incest laws which specifically say that parents cannot have a marriage or sexual relations with adopted children. That makes your whole argument about incest laws being based on bloodlines and the dangers of inbreeding invalid.

Incest laws are not only about bloodlines or inbreeding.

On the other side, there are state laws which define sexual intercourse as penetration of the female sex organ by the male sex organ, which would seem to indicate that same sex non-marital sexual relations by close family in such a state would be legal. Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine Of course, there may be other laws or statutes which make it illegal.

The point is that incest laws are not all the same, yet you seem to treat them as such.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why is that such a problem for me?

There is also no legal assumption that a marriage will not include sex.

More importantly though, I have a problem with the issue of undue influence.

Mothers and fathers are in position of authority over their children that could easily- and has been way to often- abused in relationships.

That is the primary reason for the ban on such marriages.

But if you want to go to court to argue for your right to marry your daughter- I support your right to go to court to seek redress.

Undue influence can occur in relationships of unrelated persons as well.

That's why a legal contract is only legitimate if both parties consent. That consent is not your, or my concern.

You fought this as a 14th amendment right, now you wish denial of that right to others.

You've become quite the bigot.

You understand that Incest can still be illegal, right?

So much for your argument

LOL- you think that incest should be legal too? If not you are a bigot- right?

Please supply the quote. I've said many times that incest should remain illegal.

Our government has a duty to keep bloodlines strong.

Your reaching because you can't defend your bigotry.

How fucking cute

Are you aware that in some states incest is defined not only as sexual contact but also as marriage between close relations? Are you aware that in some states adopted children are specifically included in incest laws?

Incest laws are not only about sex or about bloodlines.

I am aware, and that those laws were made at a time when marriage law contained a line simalar to this:

"Between a Man and a Woman, not to closely related", thus implying a sexual relationship in which the production of a child was possible.

Those laws are silly not that the law were modified to read "marriage is between two people, not closely related"

Unless you can find a State law that states that Sexual contact is a requirement for a valid Marriage, then you, and those incest laws are unjust and violates the 14th amendment.

Wrong.

A violation of the 14th Amendment occurs when persons of a given class are denied the right to due process and equal protection of law predicated solely on who they are, absent a rational basis, objective, documented evidence in support, and a legitimate legislative purpose.

Consequently, laws denying same-sex couples access to marriage contract law for no other reason than being gay violate the 14th Amendment.

Laws prohibiting incest are perfectly Constitutional because they are rationally based, are supported by objective, documented evidence, and pursue a proper legislative end:

“Incest laws aim to promote security and unity with the family, and to prevent the genetic problems that often occur in babies whose parents are related.”

Incest Laws and Criminal Charges | Nolo.com

Moreover, laws prohibiting incest do not violate the 14th Amendment because they are applied to everyone equally, seeking not to disadvantage a given class of persons through force of law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The law, and it's now protections under the 14th amendment violates the equal protection standards of same sex family members for no sound legal reason.

I find it interesting that it is because of the modification brought on by Obergfell, that being the elimination of marriage being "between a man and a woman" that marriage has no implication that sex has a place in the law.

Sex is certainly not a requirement in any marriage law that I can find, and the law itself contains no explanation as to why the parties cannot be closely related....Perplexing to say the least

And I can't wait to see the assholes on the USSC liberal wing sort it all out. It killed their colleague Scalia IMHO, the decision last year was so spontaneous without any forward thought to how it might affect marriage into the future and society as a whole and all the complex issues spiraling off of marriage.

Not to mention how it might affect children not having either a mother or father anymore from marriage..

lol

You can’t be serious.

Obergefell was decided in June of 2015, Scalia died February the next year.

Otherwise, this fails as a ridiculous slippery slope fallacy and inane demagoguery predicated solely on bigotry and hate.

 

[Silhouette]

Scalia lamented to the world that Obergefell was the most damaging case he'd ever known. It bothered him greatly.

Then about 6 months later after announcing this to the world, he was found dead with a pillow over his head as he lay alone at a resort bedroom in Texas.

 

[Silhouette]

Are you aware that in some states incest is defined not only as sexual contact but also as marriage between close relations? Are you aware that in some states adopted children are specifically included in incest laws?

Incest laws are not only about sex or about bloodlines.

But they DO restrict the freedoms of a different type of sexual orientation and intimate lifestyle choices between consenting adults; so they're right in your wheelhouse for protection, yes Montrovant?

You don't even know what constitutes a sexual orientation, so you might want to stay out of any conversation which includes them.

You know it's interesting you brought that up. Because you're defending the core of your premise. You should be more careful in the future.

If it is found that people have a natural attraction to a certain grouping of people sexually, then it is a sexual orientation. If this is found with incest or polygamy, or even as "an intimate choice of lifestyle" (USSC Obergefell 2015) as "sexual orientation" then your premise is blown to shit. Which is why you included a "laughing hilariously!" emoticon. Because people often laugh very heartily (and nervously) as the last screen of defense when their weak scale is being approached..

 

[Pop23]

Undue influence can occur in relationships of unrelated persons as well.

That's why a legal contract is only legitimate if both parties consent. That consent is not your, or my concern.

You fought this as a 14th amendment right, now you wish denial of that right to others.

You've become quite the bigot.

You understand that Incest can still be illegal, right?

So much for your argument

LOL- you think that incest should be legal too? If not you are a bigot- right?

Please supply the quote. I've said many times that incest should remain illegal.

Our government has a duty to keep bloodlines strong.

Your reaching because you can't defend your bigotry.

How fucking cute

Are you aware that in some states incest is defined not only as sexual contact but also as marriage between close relations? Are you aware that in some states adopted children are specifically included in incest laws?

Incest laws are not only about sex or about bloodlines.

I am aware, and that those laws were made at a time when marriage law contained a line simalar to this:

"Between a Man and a Woman, not to closely related", thus implying a sexual relationship in which the production of a child was possible.

Those laws are silly not that the law were modified to read "marriage is between two people, not closely related"

Unless you can find a State law that states that Sexual contact is a requirement for a valid Marriage, then you, and those incest laws are unjust and violates the 14th amendment.

Wrong.

A violation of the 14th Amendment occurs when persons of a given class are denied the right to due process and equal protection of law predicated solely on who they are, absent a rational basis, objective, documented evidence in support, and a legitimate legislative purpose.

Consequently, laws denying same-sex couples access to marriage contract law for no other reason than being gay violate the 14th Amendment.

Laws prohibiting incest are perfectly Constitutional because they are rationally based, are supported by objective, documented evidence, and pursue a proper legislative end:

“Incest laws aim to promote security and unity with the family, and to prevent the genetic problems that often occur in babies whose parents are related.”

Incest Laws and Criminal Charges | Nolo.com

Moreover, laws prohibiting incest do not violate the 14th Amendment because they are applied to everyone equally, seeking not to disadvantage a given class of persons through force of law.

What genetic problems occur to babies conceived by same sex?

And as we learned in Windsor, marriage is about inheritance tax.

Windsor claimed damages because her inability to marry increased her tax bourdon. Why shouldn't a Mother marry her daughter to decrease this expense?

And still no one has produced the law that marriage requires sex? It's simply your assumption. Should we criminalize family members in the formation of other legal partnerships because the members might have sex????

That's absurd

 

[mdk]

Scalia lamented to the world that Obergefell was the most damaging case he'd ever known. It bothered him greatly.

Then about 6 months later after announcing this to the world, he was found dead with a pillow over his head as he lay alone at a resort bedroom in Texas.

Obese men in their late-70's don't just drop dead. It must have been gays marrying that killed him.

 

[Pop23]

Undue influence can occur in relationships of unrelated persons as well.

That's why a legal contract is only legitimate if both parties consent. That consent is not your, or my concern.

You fought this as a 14th amendment right, now you wish denial of that right to others.

You've become quite the bigot.

You understand that Incest can still be illegal, right?

So much for your argument

LOL- you think that incest should be legal too? If not you are a bigot- right?

Please supply the quote. I've said many times that incest should remain illegal.

Our government has a duty to keep bloodlines strong.

Your reaching because you can't defend your bigotry.

How fucking cute

Are you aware that in some states incest is defined not only as sexual contact but also as marriage between close relations? Are you aware that in some states adopted children are specifically included in incest laws?

Incest laws are not only about sex or about bloodlines.

I am aware, and those laws were made at a time when marriage law contained a line simalar to this:

"Between a Man and a Woman, not to closely related", thus implying a sexual relationship in which the production of a child was possible.

Those laws are silly not that the law were modified to read "marriage is between two people, not closely related"

Unless you can find a State law that states that Sexual contact is a requirement for a valid Marriage, then you, and those incest laws are unjust and violates the 14th amendment.

Why does the possibility of a child matter if the incestuous relationship is with an adopted child? By your reasoning that wouldn't be important, yet there are incest laws which specifically say that parents cannot have a marriage or sexual relations with adopted children. That makes your whole argument about incest laws being based on bloodlines and the dangers of inbreeding invalid.

Incest laws are not only about bloodlines or inbreeding.

On the other side, there are state laws which define sexual intercourse as penetration of the female sex organ by the male sex organ, which would seem to indicate that same sex non-marital sexual relations by close family in such a state would be legal. Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine Of course, there may be other laws or statutes which make it illegal.

The point is that incest laws are not all the same, yet you seem to treat them as such.

You realize that allowing family members their constitutional right to marriage does not change incest laws, right. Sexual relations in, or outside marriage can still be banned.

No marriage law exists that requires sexual contact between its participants.

 

[Silhouette]

You realize that allowing family members their constitutional right to marriage does not change incest laws, right. Sexual relations in, or outside marriage can still be banned.

No marriage law exists that requires sexual contact between its participants.

I love it Pop. Rope 'em up and hogtie 'em with their own lasso!

 

[beagle9]

Faggots are filth.

Oh dudester, do you REALLY want to go there?

Eunuchs were the purest conceived beings since Eve.

. What in tarnation is a Eunuch, a Eunuchcorn without it's horn or had it's horn cut off ???? ROTFLMBO.

Koodos! Those horns all got mixed together in the beginning.

. Regardless of what happens, the human body was designed by God in a specific way, and it was intended to be used in those specific ways. Going against the grain always brings consequences in some forms or another, and such things have been documented greatly over time, but due to the humans thinking that they are smarter than God, well they bring great suffering onto themselves in many ways, and they are the only ones to blame for it, because the information is not hidden from them and never was. Everything is about people's mental health & physical well being, and it should be treated in those terms always.

Faggots are filth.

Oh dudester, do you REALLY want to go there?

Eunuchs were the purest conceived beings since Eve.

. What in tarnation is a Eunuch, a Eunuchcorn without it's horn or had it's horn cut off ???? ROTFLMBO.

Koodos! Those horns all got mixed together in the beginning.

. Regardless of what happens, the human body was designed by God in a specific way, and it was intended to be used in those specific ways. Going against the grain always brings consequences in some forms or another, and such things have been documented greatly over time, but due to the humans thinking that they are smarter than God, well they bring great suffering onto themselves in many ways, and they are the only ones to blame for it, because the information is not hidden from them and never was. Everything is about people's mental health & physical well being, and it should be treated in those terms always.

I think there is some truth to be had here, especially in the realm of a discussion of incest within marriage.

Incest as a biological term is only relevant to opposite sex participants. Same sex couplings of family members do not produce adverse biological effects.

The law, and it's now protections under the 14th amendment violates the equal protection standards of same sex family members for no sound legal reason.

I find it interesting that it is because of the modification brought on by Obergfell, that being the elimination of marriage being "between a man and a woman" that marriage has no implication that sex has a place in the law.

Sex is certainly not a requirement in any marriage law that I can find, and the law itself contains no explanation as to why the parties cannot be closely related.

Perplexing to say the least

. Incest between a man and a woman does cause adverse biological damage to the offspring if there is any. People have known this for centuries, and that's why it was not acceptable either by societies here, and I suspect it's not acceptable elswhere around the world the same.

 

[Silhouette]

Incest between a man and a woman does cause adverse biological damage to the offspring if there is any. People have known this for centuries, and that's why it was not acceptable either by societies here, and I suspect it's not acceptable elswhere around the world the same.

Likewise, depriving a child of a mother or father for life as in "gay marriage" does adverse psychological damage to a child. (You call them "offspring" in hopes people won't know that's the same thing as children...lol...nice try)

You're catching on to this "marriage is most important for the children" thing pretty fast! (which is why I'm enjoying the hell out of Pop hog tying y'all with your own lasso).

 

[mdk]

Incest between a man and a woman does cause adverse biological damage to the offspring if there is any. People have known this for centuries, and that's why it was not acceptable either by societies here, and I suspect it's not acceptable elswhere around the world the same.

Likewise, depriving a child of a mother or father for life as in "gay marriage" does adverse psychological damage to a child. (You call them "offspring" in hopes people won't know that's the same thing as children...lol...nice try)

You're catching on to this "marriage is most important for the children" thing pretty fast! (which is why I'm enjoying the hell out of Pop hog tying y'all with your own lasso).

I agree. If we stop gays from marrying their children will suddenly have opposite sex parents in their household. lol

 

[beagle9]

Incest between a man and a woman does cause adverse biological damage to the offspring if there is any. People have known this for centuries, and that's why it was not acceptable either by societies here, and I suspect it's not acceptable elswhere around the world the same.

Likewise, depriving a child of a mother or father for life as in "gay marriage" does adverse psychological damage to a child. (You call them "offspring" in hopes people won't know that's the same thing as children...lol...nice try)

You're catching on to this "marriage is most important for the children" thing pretty fast! (which is why I'm enjoying the hell out of Pop hog tying y'all with your own lasso).

. Offspring or children yes, even when speaking in the context of incest or whatever, but of course they are children the same thing yes of course. Hog tie who ?

 

[beagle9]

Incest between a man and a woman does cause adverse biological damage to the offspring if there is any. People have known this for centuries, and that's why it was not acceptable either by societies here, and I suspect it's not acceptable elswhere around the world the same.

Likewise, depriving a child of a mother or father for life as in "gay marriage" does adverse psychological damage to a child. (You call them "offspring" in hopes people won't know that's the same thing as children...lol...nice try)

You're catching on to this "marriage is most important for the children" thing pretty fast! (which is why I'm enjoying the hell out of Pop hog tying y'all with your own lasso).

I agree. If we stop gays from marrying their children will suddenly have opposite sex parents in their household. lol

. Did you all even understand what I was saying ? Incest cause's brain damage or problems as such in which causes the child to have physical disabilities as a result of.