The first same sex incestuous marriage

[mdk]

. 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

Oh, I fully understand what you are saying. I was commenting on how Sil believes stopping gays from marrying will suddenly give their children a mother and father.

 

[JoeMoma]

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.

The exact arguments that made same sex marriage legal can be applied to same sex siblings that wish to be married. Genetic problems is not an issue. Since they are consenting adults, the have the same right to choose each other as non related adults.

 

[JoeMoma]

Same sex couples don't produce children. Thus, incest laws prevent a class of people from exercising rights that other people enjoy, the right to marry the person of their choice. As already established in the same sex marriage cases, the marjority don't have the right to prevent this minority from the Union of marriage because they think it is "icky".

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Same sex couples don't produce children. Thus, incest laws prevent a class of people from exercising rights that other people enjoy, the right to marry the person of their choice. As already established in the same sex marriage cases, the marjority don't have the right to prevent this minority from the Union of marriage because they think it is "icky".

Liberals are too stupid to understand that.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

I never said that marriage requires sex. What you seem to be missing is that incest laws cover more than just sex. You also seem to be missing that incest is illegal for more than just reasons of possible genetic defects.

Of course, you always seem to ignore those things, as this 'marriage doesn't require sex' argument is an old one from you.

 

[JoeMoma]

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.

I never said that marriage requires sex. What you seem to be missing is that incest laws cover more than just sex. You also seem to be missing that incest is illegal for more than just reasons of possible genetic defects.

Of course, you always seem to ignore those things, as this 'marriage doesn't require sex' argument is an old one from you.

Other than genetic reasons, why is incest illegal between consenting adults?

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

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.

I never said that marriage requires sex. What you seem to be missing is that incest laws cover more than just sex. You also seem to be missing that incest is illegal for more than just reasons of possible genetic defects.

Of course, you always seem to ignore those things, as this 'marriage doesn't require sex' argument is an old one from you.

If 'love is love', why should incest be illegal?

 

[Montrovant]

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.

The exact arguments that made same sex marriage legal can be applied to same sex siblings that wish to be married. Genetic problems is not an issue. Since they are consenting adults, the have the same right to choose each other as non related adults.

I think sibling marriage would have a far better chance of becoming legal than parent/child or grandpare

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.

I never said that marriage requires sex. What you seem to be missing is that incest laws cover more than just sex. You also seem to be missing that incest is illegal for more than just reasons of possible genetic defects.

Of course, you always seem to ignore those things, as this 'marriage doesn't require sex' argument is an old one from you.

Other than genetic reasons, why is incest illegal between consenting adults?

At least in cases of parents/grandparents and children, there is such a position of power involved.

 

[JoeMoma]

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.

The exact arguments that made same sex marriage legal can be applied to same sex siblings that wish to be married. Genetic problems is not an issue. Since they are consenting adults, the have the same right to choose each other as non related adults.

I think sibling marriage would have a far better chance of becoming legal than parent/child or grandpare

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.

I never said that marriage requires sex. What you seem to be missing is that incest laws cover more than just sex. You also seem to be missing that incest is illegal for more than just reasons of possible genetic defects.

Of course, you always seem to ignore those things, as this 'marriage doesn't require sex' argument is an old one from you.

Other than genetic reasons, why is incest illegal between consenting adults?

At least in cases of parents/grandparents and children, there is such a position of power involved.

Position of power should not be an issue with CONSENTING ADULTS.
That being said, even in traditional marriage there is often a dominate spouse.

 

[Pop23]

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.

I never said that marriage requires sex. What you seem to be missing is that incest laws cover more than just sex. You also seem to be missing that incest is illegal for more than just reasons of possible genetic defects.

Of course, you always seem to ignore those things, as this 'marriage doesn't require sex' argument is an old one from you.

Not ignored, I answered.

The reason they exist, and include marriage as a form of incest is that marriage, at the time those laws were created was ALWAYS BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN, NOT TO CLOSELY RELATED.

The offspring would be biologically harmed.

Now the law reads. TWO PEOPLE, NOT CLOSELY RELATED.

The offspring of same sex coupling?

Harmed in what way exactly?

Do you not see the absurdity?

And, where is the requirement for sexual contact in the law?

Marriage Now is simply an efficient way to leave pass on property at deep discounted tax rates.

 

[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.

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.

The exact arguments that made same sex marriage legal can be applied to same sex siblings that wish to be married. Genetic problems is not an issue. Since they are consenting adults, the have the same right to choose each other as non related adults.

I think sibling marriage would have a far better chance of becoming legal than parent/child or grandpare

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.

I never said that marriage requires sex. What you seem to be missing is that incest laws cover more than just sex. You also seem to be missing that incest is illegal for more than just reasons of possible genetic defects.

Of course, you always seem to ignore those things, as this 'marriage doesn't require sex' argument is an old one from you.

Other than genetic reasons, why is incest illegal between consenting adults?

At least in cases of parents/grandparents and children, there is such a position of power involved.

Position of power should not be an issue with CONSENTING ADULTS.
That being said, even in traditional marriage there is often a dominate spouse.

Parents are in a unique position of authority over their children. If you disagree, feel free to take a case to court arguing you should be allowed to have sexual relations or marry your parent.

 

[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.

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.

I never said that marriage requires sex. What you seem to be missing is that incest laws cover more than just sex. You also seem to be missing that incest is illegal for more than just reasons of possible genetic defects.

Of course, you always seem to ignore those things, as this 'marriage doesn't require sex' argument is an old one from you.

Not ignored, I answered.

The reason they exist, and include marriage as a form of incest is that marriage, at the time those laws were created was ALWAYS BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN, NOT TO CLOSELY RELATED.

The offspring would be biologically harmed.

Now the law reads. TWO PEOPLE, NOT CLOSELY RELATED.

The offspring of same sex coupling?

Harmed in what way exactly?

Do you not see the absurdity?

And, where is the requirement for sexual contact in the law?

Marriage Now is simply an efficient way to leave pass on property at deep discounted tax rates.

You again ignore that incest laws are about more than just sex.

Further, by your reasoning, infertile closely related couples should have been able to have sex and marry long before Obergefell. The offspring of infertile coupling?

You can keep arguing your strawman about sex being required in marriage, but no one other than you has said that that I am aware of.

 

[beagle9]

Same sex couples don't produce children. Thus, incest laws prevent a class of people from exercising rights that other people enjoy, the right to marry the person of their choice. As already established in the same sex marriage cases, the marjority don't have the right to prevent this minority from the Union of marriage because they think it is "icky".

. Applying the same logic liberals use, yes you have a valid point.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

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.

Yea, platonic relationships are either contrived or enduringly develop and continually enlarge, while SO's, living closely together, spend way too much time with work. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

 

[beagle9]

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.

The exact arguments that made same sex marriage legal can be applied to same sex siblings that wish to be married. Genetic problems is not an issue. Since they are consenting adults, the have the same right to choose each other as non related adults.

I think sibling marriage would have a far better chance of becoming legal than parent/child or grandpare

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 never said that marriage requires sex. What you seem to be missing is that incest laws cover more than just sex. You also seem to be missing that incest is illegal for more than just reasons of possible genetic defects.

Of course, you always seem to ignore those things, as this 'marriage doesn't require sex' argument is an old one from you.

Other than genetic reasons, why is incest illegal between consenting adults?

At least in cases of parents/grandparents and children, there is such a position of power involved.

Position of power should not be an issue with CONSENTING ADULTS.
That being said, even in traditional marriage there is often a dominate spouse.

Parents are in a unique position of authority over their children. If you disagree, feel free to take a case to court arguing you should be allowed to have sexual relations or marry your parent.

. Sadly I do know a man and woman who were married, and they had two children between them. They were, and one of them still is very wealthy since one had long ago past away. Come to find out they were brother & sister. Both the children have problems from the situation. It's a bad deal, and I'm sure they realized it, but it is what it was I guess. Met these people when working years ago on their power lines. Not sure about them anymore.

 

[Pop23]

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.

The exact arguments that made same sex marriage legal can be applied to same sex siblings that wish to be married. Genetic problems is not an issue. Since they are consenting adults, the have the same right to choose each other as non related adults.

I think sibling marriage would have a far better chance of becoming legal than parent/child or grandpare

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 never said that marriage requires sex. What you seem to be missing is that incest laws cover more than just sex. You also seem to be missing that incest is illegal for more than just reasons of possible genetic defects.

Of course, you always seem to ignore those things, as this 'marriage doesn't require sex' argument is an old one from you.

Other than genetic reasons, why is incest illegal between consenting adults?

At least in cases of parents/grandparents and children, there is such a position of power involved.

Position of power should not be an issue with CONSENTING ADULTS.
That being said, even in traditional marriage there is often a dominate spouse.

Parents are in a unique position of authority over their children. If you disagree, feel free to take a case to court arguing you should be allowed to have sexual relations or marry your parent.

Children can't marry. Adults marry.

So should we not allow the Aduld offspring and Parents to enter into any legal partnership because of this "unique position" ? LLCs should not include family members?

And for your insult? You know you lost.

And leave my family out of this scumbag

 

[Pop23]

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.

I never said that marriage requires sex. What you seem to be missing is that incest laws cover more than just sex. You also seem to be missing that incest is illegal for more than just reasons of possible genetic defects.

Of course, you always seem to ignore those things, as this 'marriage doesn't require sex' argument is an old one from you.

Not ignored, I answered.

The reason they exist, and include marriage as a form of incest is that marriage, at the time those laws were created was ALWAYS BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN, NOT TO CLOSELY RELATED.

The offspring would be biologically harmed.

Now the law reads. TWO PEOPLE, NOT CLOSELY RELATED.

The offspring of same sex coupling?

Harmed in what way exactly?

Do you not see the absurdity?

And, where is the requirement for sexual contact in the law?

Marriage Now is simply an efficient way to leave pass on property at deep discounted tax rates.

You again ignore that incest laws are about more than just sex.

Further, by your reasoning, infertile closely related couples should have been able to have sex and marry long before Obergefell. The offspring of infertile coupling?

You can keep arguing your strawman about sex being required in marriage, but no one other than you has said that that I am aware of.

I make no such argument. When did I ever say sex was a requirement of marriage? Quote it.

You like the idea of state approved marital rape? Appears you must.

Sad

 

[Montrovant]

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.

The exact arguments that made same sex marriage legal can be applied to same sex siblings that wish to be married. Genetic problems is not an issue. Since they are consenting adults, the have the same right to choose each other as non related adults.

I think sibling marriage would have a far better chance of becoming legal than parent/child or grandpare

I never said that marriage requires sex. What you seem to be missing is that incest laws cover more than just sex. You also seem to be missing that incest is illegal for more than just reasons of possible genetic defects.

Of course, you always seem to ignore those things, as this 'marriage doesn't require sex' argument is an old one from you.

Other than genetic reasons, why is incest illegal between consenting adults?

At least in cases of parents/grandparents and children, there is such a position of power involved.

Position of power should not be an issue with CONSENTING ADULTS.
That being said, even in traditional marriage there is often a dominate spouse.

Parents are in a unique position of authority over their children. If you disagree, feel free to take a case to court arguing you should be allowed to have sexual relations or marry your parent.

Children can't marry. Adults marry.

So should we not allow the Aduld offspring and Parents to enter into any legal partnership because of this "unique position" ? LLCs should not include family members?

And for your insult? You know you lost.

And leave my family out of this scumbag

I did not insult you. Perhaps, if you took it as an insult, you should look to your own insecurities.

I didn't involve your family. I said you are free to argue in court that you should be allowed to have sexual relations or marry a parent if you think you should be able to. I neither know nor care about your parents nor your relationship with them. I'm simply pointing out that if you think you have a legal argument about allowing marriage or sex between parents and their children, you can make that argument in court.

A parent might well abuse their relationship with their child in other forms of contract. Marriage is a unique form of contract, though, and does not work quite the same as business arrangements. Again, if you disagree, you are free to take your argument to court.

 

[JoeMoma]

The exact arguments that made same sex marriage legal can be applied to same sex siblings that wish to be married. Genetic problems is not an issue. Since they are consenting adults, the have the same right to choose each other as non related adults.

I think sibling marriage would have a far better chance of becoming legal than parent/child or grandpare

Other than genetic reasons, why is incest illegal between consenting adults?

At least in cases of parents/grandparents and children, there is such a position of power involved.

Position of power should not be an issue with CONSENTING ADULTS.
That being said, even in traditional marriage there is often a dominate spouse.

Parents are in a unique position of authority over their children. If you disagree, feel free to take a case to court arguing you should be allowed to have sexual relations or marry your parent.

Children can't marry. Adults marry.

So should we not allow the Aduld offspring and Parents to enter into any legal partnership because of this "unique position" ? LLCs should not include family members?

And for your insult? You know you lost.

And leave my family out of this scumbag

I did not insult you. Perhaps, if you took it as an insult, you should look to your own insecurities.

I didn't involve your family. I said you are free to argue in court that you should be allowed to have sexual relations or marry a parent if you think you should be able to. I neither know nor care about your parents nor your relationship with them. I'm simply pointing out that if you think you have a legal argument about allowing marriage or sex between parents and their children, you can make that argument in court.

A parent might well abuse their relationship with their child in other forms of contract. Marriage is a unique form of contract, though, and does not work quite the same as business arrangements. Again, if you disagree, you are free to take your argument to court.

You keep using the word child. We are talking about adults. Consenting adults!

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Weren't we assured that gays couldn't be this perverted?

Oklahoma mother, daughter arrested after alleged incestuous marriage

Of course a lesbian is going to fuck her daughter. That's why gays have children. They are perverts.

The definition of marriage has already been butchered. If these 2 consenting adults want to marry then why the hell not. What does marriage mean anymore? It used to be a union between a man and a woman, but sense all traditional meaning has been removed, I could care less who marries who or what. Supreme Court seems to think that any 2 people who want to "marry" should be allowed. I think they have opened the Pandora's box and I now fully support incestual or polygamous unions.