The first same sex incestuous marriage

[Silhouette]

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.

...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.

Montrovant is lying about different contracts are different when it comes to the rules of how they bind. He's worried that now that Kennedy reaffirmed in written law (Obergefell 2015) that children are implicit parties to the marriage contract, that depriving them by using that contract, of either a mother or father for life will cause trouble when Obergefell is challenged soon. He knows via the Infancy Doctrine and New York vs Ferber (USSC 1982) that you can't exercise legal rights if your doing so hurts children either physically or psychologically.

And Monty, why should anyone argue if two consenting adults of any given sexual orientation who have made an "intimate choice" can be allowed to marry? That argument was done and settled last year. Obergefell said no state may discriminate against anyone wanting to marry based on their sexual orientation. It was impossible for him to mean JUST homosexual orientation because he cited the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment is all inclusive and cannot discriminate based on "ickyness" once a minority class (sexual orientation) escapes majority regulation.

Yet we find states still able to say "no" to incest marriage an polyamorous (polygamy) marriage. So it's still apparently decided by the states on sexual orientations of various types. Just not homosexual orientation. Which violates the 14th so...????? This and half a dozen other compelling fatal flaws in Obergefell...

 

[mdk]

Montrovant is lying about different contracts are different when it comes to the rules of how they bind. He's worried that now that Kennedy reaffirmed in written law (Obergefell 2015) that children are implicit parties to the marriage contract, that depriving them by using that contract, of either a mother or father for life will cause trouble when Obergefell is challenged soon. He knows via the Infancy Doctrine and New York vs Ferber (USSC 1982) that you can't exercise legal rights if your doing so hurts children either physically or psychologically.

There isn't a single state in this nation where children are an implicit members to the marriage of their parents. Not one. Besides, the Infancy Doctrine has never been used once in this nation to invalidate a contract between adults. Repeating the same lame bullshit over and over again doesn't make it true. Gay people can marry in every single state and their isn't shit you can do about it except whine on the Internet. Too bad, so sad.

 

[Silhouette]

There isn't a single state in this nation where children are an implicit members to the marriage of their parents. Not one. Besides, the Infancy Doctrine has never been used once in this nation to invalidate a contract between adults. Repeating the same lame bullshit over and over again doesn't make it true. Gay people can marry in every single state and their isn't shit you can do about it except whine on the Internet. Too bad, so sad.

You'll have to send Kennedy that memo because Obergefell's finding covers all 50 states. And in it, Kennedy said that he was Upholding that decision because of the benefits of marriage he said children (one would assume all of them and not just some) needed. The contract therefore implicitly includes them. The fact that marriage was created for and about children over a thousand years ago to provide them with both a mother and father, and that 7 billion people understand it that way as well up until last Summer only augments children's implicit membership to the marriage contract. THE CONTRACT WAS INVENTED FOR AND BECAUSE OF CHILDREN.

 

[mdk]

There isn't a single state in this nation where children are an implicit members to the marriage of their parents. Not one. Besides, the Infancy Doctrine has never been used once in this nation to invalidate a contract between adults. Repeating the same lame bullshit over and over again doesn't make it true. Gay people can marry in every single state and their isn't shit you can do about it except whine on the Internet. Too bad, so sad.

You'll have to send Kennedy that memo because Obergefell's finding covers all 50 states. And in it, Kennedy said that he was Upholding that decision because of the benefits of marriage he said children (one would assume all of them and not just some) needed. The contract therefore implicitly includes them. The fact that marriage was created for and about children over a thousand years ago and that 7 billion people understand it that way as well up until last Summer only augments children's implicit membership to the marriage contract. THE CONTRACT WAS INVENTED FOR AND BECAUSE OF CHILDREN.

Nope, just checked again and children are still not implicit members to the marriage contract of their parents in any state in this country. You can pretend otherwise until the cows come home, but nobody is bound by your delusional legal standards. True story.

 

[Silhouette]

So here as everywhere else, you repeat a lie until it becomes "true"..like the uber troll you are.

 

[mdk]

So here as everywhere else, you repeat a lie until it becomes "true"..like the uber troll you are.

Sorry, nobody is buying what you're peddling. Quit whining, crybaby.

 

[Montrovant]

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

Whatever your age, you are still your parents' child.

 

[Montrovant]

So here as everywhere else, you repeat a lie until it becomes "true"..like the uber troll you are.

What, you mean like the lie that children are parties to the marriage contracts of their parents?

 

[Montrovant]

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.

...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.

Montrovant is lying about different contracts are different when it comes to the rules of how they bind. He's worried that now that Kennedy reaffirmed in written law (Obergefell 2015) that children are implicit parties to the marriage contract, that depriving them by using that contract, of either a mother or father for life will cause trouble when Obergefell is challenged soon. He knows via the Infancy Doctrine and New York vs Ferber (USSC 1982) that you can't exercise legal rights if your doing so hurts children either physically or psychologically.

And Monty, why should anyone argue if two consenting adults of any given sexual orientation who have made an "intimate choice" can be allowed to marry? That argument was done and settled last year. Obergefell said no state may discriminate against anyone wanting to marry based on their sexual orientation. It was impossible for him to mean JUST homosexual orientation because he cited the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment is all inclusive and cannot discriminate based on "ickyness" once a minority class (sexual orientation) escapes majority regulation.

Yet we find states still able to say "no" to incest marriage an polyamorous (polygamy) marriage. So it's still apparently decided by the states on sexual orientations of various types. Just not homosexual orientation. Which violates the 14th so...????? This and half a dozen other compelling fatal flaws in Obergefell...

Polygamy is not a sexual orientation.

The infancy doctrine is about minors entering into contracts, not about the children of adults entering into contracts.

Were you saying something about repeating a lie hoping that will make it true?

 

[Pop23]

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

Have you noticed that when pressed on this subject, they resort to marriage in its traditional view?

That is a hoot to say the least.

A woman may marry a woman to get deep discounted inheritance tax, but if those two are related?

Screw them!

Ammirite?

 

[JoeMoma]

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!

Have you noticed that when pressed on this subject, they resort to marriage in its traditional view?

That is a hoot to say the least.

A woman may marry a woman to get deep discounted inheritance tax, but if those two are related?

Screw them!

Ammirite?

Yep. Echoing many of the same arguments the bigots were giving for preserving traditional marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

Have you noticed that when pressed on this subject, they resort to marriage in its traditional view?..That is a hoot to say the least.

A woman may marry a woman to get deep discounted inheritance tax, but if those two are related?...Screw them!...Ammirite?

Yep. Echoing many of the same arguments the bigots were giving for preserving traditional marriage.

It's not necessarily a bigoted stance to protest an institution created to provide children with BOTH a mother and father for life over a thousand years ago, that is having that key benefit to children legally-erased by a brand new contract put in the old one's place. Instead it is justified alarm and concern.

You need to learn the difference. The word "bigot" is WAY overused.

 

[Pop23]

Have you noticed that when pressed on this subject, they resort to marriage in its traditional view?..That is a hoot to say the least.

A woman may marry a woman to get deep discounted inheritance tax, but if those two are related?...Screw them!...Ammirite?

Yep. Echoing many of the same arguments the bigots were giving for preserving traditional marriage.

It's not necessarily a bigoted stance to protest an institution created to provide children with BOTH a mother and father for life over a thousand years ago, that is having that key benefit to children legally-erased by a brand new contract put in the old one's place. Instead it is justified alarm and concern.

You need to learn the difference. The word "bigot" is WAY overused.

The institution, at least as a governmental sanction union, is quite honestly a silly absurd concept now.

Removing "one man and one woman, not closely related", created a union that is purely subjective.

With it now being "any two people, not closely related" you have to wonder.......


Why only two? And why can't they be closely related?

Marriage had no qualification that it has anything to do with sexual contact. The participants are not required to have sex nor a duty to perform sex, so why the exclusion? Because it's the law? Poppycock! traditional marriage law would never have been modified if that were the case.

Perplexing to say the least.

 

[JoeMoma]

Have you noticed that when pressed on this subject, they resort to marriage in its traditional view?..That is a hoot to say the least.

A woman may marry a woman to get deep discounted inheritance tax, but if those two are related?...Screw them!...Ammirite?

Yep. Echoing many of the same arguments the bigots were giving for preserving traditional marriage.

It's not necessarily a bigoted stance to protest an institution created to provide children with BOTH a mother and father for life over a thousand years ago, that is having that key benefit to children legally-erased by a brand new contract put in the old one's place. Instead it is justified alarm and concern.

You need to learn the difference. The word "bigot" is WAY overused.

I was being sarcastic because many of those that support same sex marriage called those that are for traditional marriage bigots. Therefore, those that are against incestuous marriage must also be bigots by those standards.

 

[Silhouette]

Have you noticed that when pressed on this subject, they resort to marriage in its traditional view?..That is a hoot to say the least.

A woman may marry a woman to get deep discounted inheritance tax, but if those two are related?...Screw them!...Ammirite?

Yep. Echoing many of the same arguments the bigots were giving for preserving traditional marriage.

It's not necessarily a bigoted stance to protest an institution created to provide children with BOTH a mother and father for life over a thousand years ago, that is having that key benefit to children legally-erased by a brand new contract put in the old one's place. Instead it is justified alarm and concern.

You need to learn the difference. The word "bigot" is WAY overused.

I was being sarcastic because many of those that support same sex marriage called those that are for traditional marriage bigots. Therefore, those that are against incestuous marriage must also be bigots by those standards.

I kind of thought that. My bad.

 

[JoeMoma]

Have you noticed that when pressed on this subject, they resort to marriage in its traditional view?..That is a hoot to say the least.

A woman may marry a woman to get deep discounted inheritance tax, but if those two are related?...Screw them!...Ammirite?

Yep. Echoing many of the same arguments the bigots were giving for preserving traditional marriage.

It's not necessarily a bigoted stance to protest an institution created to provide children with BOTH a mother and father for life over a thousand years ago, that is having that key benefit to children legally-erased by a brand new contract put in the old one's place. Instead it is justified alarm and concern.

You need to learn the difference. The word "bigot" is WAY overused.

I was being sarcastic because many of those that support same sex marriage called those that are for traditional marriage bigots. Therefore, those that are against incestuous marriage must also be bigots by those standards.

I kind of thought that. My bad.

No Problem

 

[Syriusly]

She's bisexual? She certainly has lesbian tendencies which makes her a pervert.

Since time began, a Normal Society has meant men with women and women with men, breeding and furthering Civilisation, as The Bible says go forth and multiply.

A man and a man cannot do this, a woman and a woman cannot do this, unless it's the turkey baster or a surrogate mother, both methods are abnormal and unnatural ways of breeding.

The Agenda is designed to weaken society, by introducing all sorts of abnormal and unnatural practices into the population, which in turn will weaken society.

The Agenda's biggest fear is men and women having more children, but they promote Homosexuals and Lesbians being allowed to bring children into their abnormal environment, either through adoption, turkey basting or surrogate mothers, all three methods should be outlawed.

Normal Society has always been Heterosexual couples parenting children, either through the normal method of breeding or through adoption.

So you think that 'Normal Society' includes a mother marrying her son? Since it would be a heterosexual female marrying a male?

Which fits everything you laid out in your post- and oh and by the way- what this mother did with her son.

The Agenda- of right wing nut jobs like yourself- has always been for government to control people- their reproductive rights, how they can have sex, who they can have sex with- and when they are allowed to have sex.

"So you think that 'Normal Society' includes a mother marrying her son? Since it would be a heterosexual female marrying a male?"

You are an idiot, I spent the first half of this thread condemning that as it's incest.

Yet you didn't mention that in your post at all.

The Agenda- of right wing nut jobs like yourself- has always been for government to control people- their reproductive rights, how they can have sex, who they can have sex with- and when they are allowed to have sex

. No people just want to promote what they see as the norm in their lives,y.

And by 'promoting' the right wing puritans want to have government dictate reproductive rights and even private consensual sex acts

The Agenda- of right wing nut jobs like yourself- has always been for government to control people- their reproductive rights, how they can have sex, who they can have sex with- and when they are allowed to have sex

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Of course gays can be perverted...just like straights can be perverted...cos they're people...like straights.
This proves that gays are ordinary people.

By definition, homosexuals are perverted. And don't blame me. I didn't invent the English language.

By definition left handed people are perverted.

There you go with comparing apples to oranges, and no..it's not all fruit.

Being left handed is not sexual perversion.

LOL- but left handed people are 'perverted' by definition- don't blame me- I didn't invent the English language.

By definition left handed people and homosexuals are both perverted.

At the moment you just hate the homosexuals.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

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.

Of course gays can be perverted...just like straights can be perverted...cos they're people...like straights.
This proves that gays are ordinary people.

By definition, homosexuals are perverted. And don't blame me. I didn't invent the English language.

By definition left handed people are perverted.

There you go with comparing apples to oranges, and no..it's not all fruit.

Being left handed is not sexual perversion.

LOL- but left handed people are 'perverted' by definition- don't blame me- I didn't invent the English language.

By definition left handed people and homosexuals are both perverted.

At the moment you just hate the homosexuals.

So what? We are talking about sexual perversion. And no, its not perverted to be left-handed if you were born that way. And no....there's no proof fags are born that way.

 

[mudwhistle]

What makes you say this woman is a lesbian?

She had already married one of her sons.

Female on female sex is called lesbian. It made all the major reports for at least the last four decades.

No, female on female sex is called cunnilingus. Or possibly scissoring.

"Lesbian" is defined as a woman who is attracted to their own sex.

Not necessarily.
Some use strapons.