I concede that there is a legitimate state interest served by not letting siblings marry. You have not even been capable of indicating a rational basis to prohibit same sex marriage.<quoted text>You concede the prohibition against sibling marriage doesn't conflict with the Constitution yet argue the prohibition against same-sex marriage does.
You're not even trying to be logical, are you, fella?
And gays have the same right to marry as I do -- you want a special dispensation: you want them to have a right I don't -- to marry same sex.
Your premise is gays no more choose to be gays than I chose to be black. I say this, because were you asked does the Constitution give heteros the right to marry same-sex you'd say no.
Therefore, unless your argument is everyone should have the right to marry same-sex, you must support your underlying premise by showing homosexuality is nature not nurture --
Can you ...?
You have no business accusing anyone else of being illogical.
Arguing that homosexuals may marry someone of the opposite sex (do you really think that is logical) is inept, since you haven't been able to illustrate any legitimate state interest served by such a restriction.
I never made such a racial argument, however it is worthy of note that segregation also ended because black people are entitled to equal protection of the laws, not because they are biologically black. So you see, your nature bs nurture argument also doesn't fly.