Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17552 comments on the NBC Chicago story from Jan 7, 2013, titled Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes. In it, NBC Chicago reports that:

Leaders of several Chicago-area African American churches on Monday urged state lawmakers to vote against pending legislation that would allow same-sex marriage in Illinois.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NBC Chicago.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10800 Oct 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet there have been other court cases, affirming those rulings which date back over a hundred years long before "gay" became a reference for same sex sexual attraction/behavior. Actually it's sexual references referred to opposite sex sexual practices first.
<quoted text>
The laws were changed. So how can they be treated under the same laws, if the laws were changed? You've contradicted yourself Nye.
<quoted text>
They are not "equal", differ in form and function.
<quoted text>
The Supreme Court has made clear marriage, as defined as the legally recognized union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, is a fundamental right. Not once did they say same sex marriage is a fundamental right. If it had, every single state constitutional amendment defining marriage as a monogamous conjugal union would be null and void.
The flaw in your argument is that if you can redefine marriage for your desire/need/want and still argue it is a fundamental right based on YOUR definition, then you cannot deny others the right to do the same.
"A primary function" does not mean a necessary function to remain a fundamental right. Again, recent courts including the Supreme Court have made it clear; procreation is not a necessary function for marriage to remain a fundamental right of all persons. Even ability to have sex is not a legal requirement. Even 100 years ago, they recognized procreation was not the only function of marriage, and not a requirement. The Windsor decision makes this clear as well.

The 1,138 federal laws that were already in effect for os couples remain in effect for all couples. Many already use the term spouse, as they apply equally regardless of gender. A spouse inherits property from the other spouse, regardless of gender.

Again, incest is an entirely different restriction. They still have plenty of choices, just not a parent or sibling.

Glad to see you finally admitting marriage is a fundamental right of all persons.

The Supremes have not yet addressed the constitutionality of state laws that restrict gender. The prop 8 folks tried, but the court said they didn't have a case, and left the lower ruling in place. Prop 8 violates the equal protections requirements of the 14th amendment.

Again, recognition of same sex marriage does not change the effect of the 1,138 federal laws that define what legal marriage means. Changing the gender terms to neutral terms such as spouse, doe not change the effects of those laws. A spouse can still inherit property from the other spouse, receive social security benefits of the spouse, etc. None of the laws are removed and none of the effects are changed by changing "husband" or "wife" to "spouse."

And again, removing the gender restriction has nothing to do with the other restrictions. If someone wants to change those restrictions, they must overcome the reasons for the restrictions. Same sex couples have shown their marriages are the same legal form and function as os couples, and all of the same laws apply equally.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#10801 Oct 2, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
What ever type of sex two men or two women have, it's serves no purpose other than, for lack of a better word, pleasure.
And pleasure is a bad thing, eh? You only had sex for reproduction, did you? No wonder you are crazy.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#10802 Oct 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all marriage is available for men and women with no religious beliefs what so ever. Nice try though.
WHAT??????

Religious belief is NOT a requirement for marriage.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#10803 Oct 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
The flaw in your argument is that if you can redefine marriage for your desire/need/want and still argue it is a fundamental right based on YOUR definition, then you cannot deny others the right to do the same.
hahahahahaha
hahahahahaha

You are one clueless fool. The State can deny ANYONE ANYTHING AT ANY TIMER if they can show a legitimate State interest in doing so. Polygamy increases violence and crime. This is an historical FACT. Increased violence and crime are NOT in the interests of the State.

The only 'flaw' is your obvious lack of education.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#10805 Oct 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yet there have been other court cases, affirming those rulings which date back over a hundred years long before "gay" became a reference for same sex sexual attraction/behavior. Actually it's sexual references referred to opposite sex sexual practices first.
That's because in the past homosexuality was synonymous with acts or behavior and those acts/behavior were against the law. Contrast that with our current understanding of homosexuality as a sexual orientation and an innate human characteristic combined with the fact the acts/behaviors previously associated with homosexuality are no longer illegal. Legal cases are adjudicated based on current knowledge and understanding, not knowledge or understanding that has yet to be learned. After all, in 1875 one wouldn't expect a case involving regulation of modes of transportation to include either cars or airplanes since neither had yet been invented.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The laws were changed. So how can they be treated under the same laws, if the laws were changed? You've contradicted yourself Nye.
The changing of marriage law to allow gays to exercise their fundamental right did not require changing the myriad other laws that define and regulate the benefits and privileges conferred by marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
They are not "equal", differ in form and function.
Having an identical "form and function" isn't a criterion for determining whether a restriction on a fundamental right is constitutional.

[QUOTE who="Pietro Armando"]
The Supreme Court has made clear marriage, as defined as the legally recognized union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, is a fundamental right.
On the contrary, SCOTUS has simply ruled "marriage" is a fundamental right; they've placed no descriptors or limitations on who may exercise that right. You conflate judicial commentary and context within the opinion with the actual legal ruling itself.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not once did they say same sex marriage is a fundamental right. If it had, every single state constitutional amendment defining marriage as a monogamous conjugal union would be null and void.
Nor have they ruled "opposite sex" marriage a fundamental right. SCOTUS has only ruled on "marriage". Further, SCOTUS only rules on question before them; no case to date has actually asked whether same sex marriage is a fundamental right or is encompassed in the marriage being a fundamental right. However, the SCOTUS ruling in Lawrence v. Texas is instructive in that in overruling Bowers v. Hardwick as precedent, the majority opinion specifically cited as an error the mischaracterization of the liberty interest presented:

" The Court began its substantive discussion in Bowers as follows:
"The issue presented is whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy and hence invalidates the laws of the many States that still make such conduct illegal and have done so for a very long time.” Id., at 190. That statement, we now conclude, discloses the Court’s own failure to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake. To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse."
Pietro Armando wrote:
The flaw in your argument is that if you can redefine marriage for your desire/need/want and still argue it is a fundamental right based on YOUR definition, then you cannot deny others the right to do the same.
On the contrary, it is YOU that has repeatedly mischaracterized what SCOTUS has actually ruled regarding marriage as a fundamental rights because you're unable to discern between the actual legal ruling and the judicial commentary and context contained within the opinion.

“Bullsh*% Detector Enabled”

Since: Dec 08

Brooklyn, New York

#10806 Oct 2, 2013
Who really cares if gays get married?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#10807 Oct 2, 2013
Black Rhino wrote:
Who really cares if gays get married?
The partners in the marriage.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#10808 Oct 2, 2013
Black Rhino wrote:
Who really cares if gays get married?
Too many people.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10809 Oct 2, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
Do they tell you about all the young Mormon boys that get dumped in Arizona? When one man has five wives, FOUR MEN have no wives. They aren't telling that part of the story, are they?
Mrs. Blowme's little boy Neil.

What boys did this family dump?

Why is it you seem to have no problem with women sharing a "baby's daddy", but object to them sharing a husband? So it's okay for men to shoot and scoot, but not okay for them to stick around and help raise the children with their mothers?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10810 Oct 2, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
What? No gender restriction was in place? What about all of those recent laws restricting marriage based on gender?
Do you mean all those laws confirming the conjugal definition of marriage? As a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife? Those laws?
Prop 8? Requiring one of each restricts choice of a partner on the basis of gender. It is an irrational restriction, but still a restriction on gender.
No, you still have plenty of choice.
Other restrictions are other restrictions. Gender is not a consideration in those other restrictions. Removing the gender restriction does not affect the other restrictions.
If conjugality is expendable, there's no reason to presume the other "restrictions" aren't expendable as well.
Recognition of same sex marriage does not change the effect of the 1,138 federal laws that define what legal marriage means.
YES IT DOES!!!!! It is extremely disingenuous to argue otherwise. Recognition of marriage does indeed change what legal marriage means. All those "1,138 federal laws", which you have yet to list what they are, exist because of marriage, the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. Remove that foundation, and he's legal marriage does change.
Changing the gender terms to neutral terms such as spouse, doe not change the effects of those laws. A spouse can still inherit property from the other spouse, receive social security benefits of the spouse, etc. None of the laws are removed by changing "husband" or "wife" to "spouse."
What you are unable, or unwilling to admit, is those laws exist because of a particular union. If marriage is reduced to simply a consenting adult two person union, regardless of gender composition, then there's no reason ANY two consenting adults could be included.
Again, neither conjugality nor monogamy are removed by removing the gender restriction.(unless you use your personal, restrictive, circular definition).
Conjugality is in fact removed, when the basis for the relationship, conjugal AS IN HUSBAND AND WIFE, is removed. Which is what SSM does.
. But again, neither is a requirement of law. A church can add those requirements if they wish, but they are not legal requirements.
Conjugal IS a requirement of law in over thirty states.
"A primary function" does not mean a necessary function to remain a fundamental right. Again, recent courts including the Supreme Court have made it clear; procreation is not a necessary function for marriage to remain a fundamental right of all persons. Even ability to have sex is not a requirement. Even 100 years ago, they recognized procreation was not the only function of marriage, and not a requirement. The Windsor decision makes this clear as well.
The Windsor decision did to declare SSM to be a fundamental right, if it had, it'd be a done deal.
The 1,138 federal laws that were already in effect for os couples remain in effect for all couples. Many already use the term spouse, as they apply equally regardless of gender. A spouse inherits property from the other spouse, regardless of gender.
Again, incest is an entirely different restriction. They still have plenty of choices, just not a parent or sibling.
Two same sex siblings can just as easily be spouses to each other as two same sex first cousins, and there's o risk of sexual procreation.. Sorry, but your claim, "They still have plenty of choices, just not a parent or sibling, can also include, someone of the same sex.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#10811 Oct 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Mrs. Blowme's little boy Neil.
What boys did this family dump?
Why is it you seem to have no problem with women sharing a "baby's daddy", but object to them sharing a husband? So it's okay for men to shoot and scoot, but not okay for them to stick around and help raise the children with their mothers?
You aren't paying attention. How many times do I have to tell you that I have no problem with polygamists? Are you dull or stupid? I've told you at least three times. The problem is the increase in violence and crime that comes with polygamy.

I realize that you cannot admit I am correct without making yourself look uneducated AND stupid, but honestly, how many times before it sinks into your brain?

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#10812 Oct 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you mean all those laws confirming the conjugal definition of marriage? As a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife? Those laws?
The fact they were passed at all indicates the original language of the marriage laws wasn't specific enough to exclude same sex marriages.
Pietro Armando wrote:
No, you still have plenty of choice.
If conjugality is expendable, there's no reason to presume the other "restrictions" aren't expendable as well.
If there is a compelling government interest for those other restrictions that has already been confirmed by judicial review, the constitutionality of them doesn't disappear merely because a different restriction was found to have no compelling government interest.
Pietro Armando wrote:
YES IT DOES!!!!! It is extremely disingenuous to argue otherwise. Recognition of marriage does indeed change what legal marriage means.
Because you're obsessed with defining marriage by who it excludes instead of what it legally accomplishes: creating kinship between previously unrelated parties.
Pietro Armando wrote:
All those "1,138 federal laws", which you have yet to list
They've been listed many times in other threads (and for all I know in this thread before my arrival). You have access to Google and Bing; you can find them yourself.
Pietro Armando wrote:
what they are, exist because of marriage, the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. Remove that foundation, and he's legal marriage does change.
Not according to the federal government. They're extending federal marriage benefits and privileges to any couple legally married under the laws of ay state. That includes same sex couples where allowed. And the federal government is doing so because of the SCOTUS ruling in Windsor v. United States declaring section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional.
Pietro Armando wrote:
What you are unable, or unwilling to admit, is those laws exist because of a particular union. If marriage is reduced to simply a consenting adult two person union, regardless of gender composition, then there's no reason ANY two consenting adults could be included.
Only willfully stupid people like you think that because you're apparently uneducable in matters of constitutional law. God knows how many different people in this thread alone have tried to correct your ignorance.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Conjugality is in fact removed, when the basis for the relationship, conjugal AS IN HUSBAND AND WIFE, is removed. Which is what SSM does.
Conjugal just refers to the relations between spouses in a marriage. The definition is not limited to only opposite sex spouses. This is just more of your circular reasoning.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Conjugal IS a requirement of law in over thirty states.
Conjugality isn't a requirement in ANY state. To the extent conjugality is referring to marital relations of spouses, that does;t exist until AFTER the participants are married. To the extent you're referring to sexual relations between souses, again, that is neither a requirement of marriage nor does it exclude same sex couples.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The Windsor decision did to declare SSM to be a fundamental right, if it had, it'd be a done deal.
Nor did it declare it wasn't. But that's because that wasn't the question before court. Courts in general and SCOTUS in particular rule on the legal issues actually before them, not on issues extraneous to the case.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Two same sex siblings can just as easily be spouses to each other as two same sex first cousins, and there's o risk of sexual procreation.. Sorry, but your claim, "They still have plenty of choices, just not a parent or sibling, can also include, someone of the same sex.
Same sex sibling are already related by blood; marriage would create conflicting kinship relationships.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10813 Oct 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you mean all those laws confirming the conjugal definition of marriage? As a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife? Those laws?
<quoted text>
No, you still have plenty of choice.
<quoted text>
If conjugality is expendable, there's no reason to presume the other "restrictions" aren't expendable as well.
<quoted text>
YES IT DOES!!!!! It is extremely disingenuous to argue otherwise. Recognition of marriage does indeed change what legal marriage means. All those "1,138 federal laws", which you have yet to list what they are, exist because of marriage, the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. Remove that foundation, and he's legal marriage does change.
<quoted text>
What you are unable, or unwilling to admit, is those laws exist because of a particular union. If marriage is reduced to simply a consenting adult two person union, regardless of gender composition, then there's no reason ANY two consenting adults could be included.
<quoted text>
Conjugality is in fact removed, when the basis for the relationship, conjugal AS IN HUSBAND AND WIFE, is removed. Which is what SSM does.
<quoted text>
Conjugal IS a requirement of law in over thirty states.
<quoted text>
The Windsor decision did to declare SSM to be a fundamental right, if it had, it'd be a done deal.
<quoted text>
Two same sex siblings can just as easily be spouses to each other as two same sex first cousins, and there's o risk of sexual procreation.. Sorry, but your claim, "They still have plenty of choices, just not a parent or sibling, can also include, someone of the same sex.
Yes, those laws that were put in place to prevent recognition of same sex marriages, once they realized same sex couples were getting married and wanted to get married, after Hawaii said there was no reason not to recognize their marriages. Those laws intended to deny equal rights to gay people, in violation of the 14th amendment.

I have provided links to the 1,138 federal laws that determine what marriage means legally. They do not treat the spouses differently based on gender. The effect of the law does not change by substituting "spouse" for husband or wife in those that use that language. Many already use spouse. Nothing changes for opposite sex couples.

Again, conjugality was never a requirement, but applies equally to same sex couples unless you exclude inclusive definitions, and rely on your circular definition. The law does not use the word "conjugal." The new laws that restrict gender to one of each provide no legitimate purpose, and will eventually be struck down. Windsor, again, did not address the state gender restrictions. It only addressed the federal gender restriction, and found it unconstitutional. Again, there is only marriage, so they did not need to find a fundamental right to ssm, because that is not a legal distinction. There is no ssm, only m, and it is a fundamental right of all persons.

The incest excuse is absurd. Removing the incest restriction is an entirely different proposal, that would change marriage for all couples. Again, the age restriction doesn't solve the problem of child abuse. Removing the incest restriction tells parents as well as children they can groom a sibling or child to become their spouse once they reach the age restriction, which can be as low as 14 in some states. Again, if genetics was the only consideration, there would be no reason to deny adult incest marriages if one had a sterilization operation. The well documented history of child abuse remains a major consideration you will have to overcome if you want to promote incest. Again, this excuse is simply absurd.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#10814 Oct 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
All those "1,138 federal laws", which you have yet to list what they are, exist because of marriage, the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife.
Here Pete......that list you claim is STRICTLY for a man and a woman married couple only:
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overvie...

Here is another site:
Social Security and Related Programs, Housing, and Food Stamps
Veterans' Benefits
Taxation
Federal Civilian and Military Service Benefits
Employment Benefits and Related Laws
Immigration, Naturalization, and Aliens
Indians
Trade, Commerce, and Intellectual Property
Financial Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Crimes and Family Violence
Loans, Guarantees, and Payments in Agriculture
Federal Natural Resources and Related Laws
Miscellaneous Laws
http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/iMAPP.GAO.p...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10815 Oct 2, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
He's only legally married to one woman.
That is correct.
He never legally married the other women.
That's because he cannot, unless does so in a series of legal marriage, and divorce. Now if the law were to change.....

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10816 Oct 2, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Here Pete......that list you claim is STRICTLY for a man and a woman married couple only:
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overvie...
Here is another site:
Social Security and Related Programs, Housing, and Food Stamps
Veterans' Benefits
Taxation
Federal Civilian and Military Service Benefits
Employment Benefits and Related Laws
Immigration, Naturalization, and Aliens
Indians
Trade, Commerce, and Intellectual Property
Financial Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Crimes and Family Violence
Loans, Guarantees, and Payments in Agriculture
Federal Natural Resources and Related Laws
Miscellaneous Laws
http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/iMAPP.GAO.p...
It's based on marriage, the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. That's why they exist in the first place!!! The Feds didn't conjure up this thing called marriage just to snub same sex couples.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10817 Oct 2, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Here Pete......that list you claim is STRICTLY for a man and a woman married couple only:
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overvie...
Here is another site:
Social Security and Related Programs, Housing, and Food Stamps
Veterans' Benefits
Taxation
Federal Civilian and Military Service Benefits
Employment Benefits and Related Laws
Immigration, Naturalization, and Aliens
Indians
Trade, Commerce, and Intellectual Property
Financial Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Crimes and Family Violence
Loans, Guarantees, and Payments in Agriculture
Federal Natural Resources and Related Laws
Miscellaneous Laws
http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/iMAPP.GAO.p...

Laws about marriage undoubtedly serve important social functions,70 but describing all federal marriage laws as “benefits” is misleading. While marriage is deeply embedded in American law, the consequences of marriage in federal law are complex and difficult to untangle. Multiple statutes often combine to create a single benefit. Other statutes impose marriage penalties, while many statutes once intended to provide marital benefits may now
penalize dual income families. Still other of these statutes provide neither a benefit nor a liability based on marital status.

While a detailed estimate of the economic impact of each of these 1,138 statutes on unmarried couples or same-sex couples is beyond the scope of this analysis, a preliminary analysis clearly shows that the claim there are “1,138 federal marriage benefits” is simply incorrect.

If the belief that exclusion from “1,138 federal benefits” of marriage imposes a serious hardship on couples unable to marry is to be used as the basis for new public policy, a more serious, comprehensive and detailed effort by the GAO or some othercompetent government research body to analyze these costs and to determine the net likelihood of marriage benefits versus marriage penalties in federal law for most couples is needed.

Meanwhile, because (with the exception of spousal health insurance benefits) the clearest financial marriage benefits are concentrated towards the end of life, and because even these are not distributed to all or even most married couples, federal marriage laws are unlikely to act as an important economic incentives to marry. Couples who marry expecting to receive “1000 federal marriage benefits” are likely to be disappointed.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#10818 Oct 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That is correct.
<quoted text>
That's because he cannot, unless does so in a series of legal marriage, and divorce. Now if the law were to change.....
Well duh..... THAT'S why he's not in jail. Jesus, you are thick.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#10819 Oct 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It's based on marriage, the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. That's why they exist in the first place!!! The Feds didn't conjure up this thing called marriage just to snub same sex couples.
Things change, scaredy cat. Gay couples have been getting married for 10 years. Perhaps you need to look at why change scares you into idiocy.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10820 Oct 2, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, those laws that were put in place to prevent recognition of same sex marriages, once they realized same sex couples were getting married and wanted to get married, after Hawaii said there was no reason not to recognize their marriages. Those laws intended to deny equal rights to gay people, in violation of the 14th amendment.
Gay people ALREADY have equal rights. So when Josh Weed, a self described gay man, married his wife, was he exercising his right to marry? Was he denied "equality"? Those laws were designed to confirm an existing definition of legal marriage, and prevent any redefinition to not only include same sex, but also polygamy, should a state decide to redefine marriage further.
I have provided links to the 1,138 federal laws that determine what marriage means legally.
They're based on a per existing relationship, marriage, defined by the states.
They do not treat the spouses differently based on gender. The effect of the law does not change by substituting "spouse" for husband or wife in those that use that language. Many already use spouse. Nothing changes for opposite sex couples.
So if that's true, there's no need to prohibit any two person consenting adult relationship whereby the participants considered themselves, "spouses".
Again, conjugality was never a requirement, but applies equally to same sex couples unless you exclude inclusive definitions, and rely on your circular definition.
It was nation wide prior to 2004, and still is in thirty plus states. "Conjugal" as in "HUSBAND AND WIFE". That's it, very simple.
The law does not use the word "conjugal."
Are you really that confused, Nye?
The new laws that restrict gender to one of each provide no legitimate purpose, and will eventually be struck down.
They serve the purpose of maintaining the legal definition of marriage as a union of husband and wife. The same definition that existed since the birth of the Republic, before it actually. Maybe they will beep struck down, or maybe they won't.
Windsor, again, did not address the state gender restrictions. It only addressed the federal gender restriction, and found it unconstitutional. Again, there is only marriage, so they did not need to find a fundamental right to ssm, because that is not a legal distinction.
There is a legal distinction in thirty plus states. Even before the constitutional amendments were passed.
There is no ssm, only m, and it is a fundamental right of all persons.
Great, that includes plural "m", as in marriage.
The incest excuse is absurd. Removing the incest restriction is an entirely different proposal, that would change marriage for all couples.
Nye.....THAT is absurd! Oh do tell....please explain how SSM doesn't change "marriage for all couples" but allowing at least same sex sibling marriage does? First cousins can marry, so why not same sex siblings?
Again, the age restriction doesn't solve the problem of child abuse.
We agree on the age restriction/requirement.
Removing the incest restriction tells parents as well as children they can groom a sibling or child to become their spouse once they reach the age restriction, which can be as low as 14 in some states.
Not if its limited to siblings.
. Again, if genetics was the only consideration, there would be no reason to deny adult incest marriages if one had a sterilization operation.
It's to out of the realm of possibility. SSM changes the rules.
The well documented history of child abuse remains a major consideration you will have to overcome if you want to promote incest. Again, this excuse is simply absurd.
Please explain how this applies to same sex siblings? SS first cousins can marry, so why not SS siblings, both are related.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 6 min Frankie Rizzo 49,197
Jade's Turkey Lodge and Cafe 14 min Frankie Rizzo 12
News Two men caned 83 times at Indonesian mosque for... 19 min Logic Analysis 12
News Two men caned in Indonesia for gay sex 25 min Frankie Rizzo 22
News S. Korean military court convicts soldier over ... 26 min Logic Analysis 7
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 38 min June VanDerMark 13,555
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 25,603
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... 2 hr Eagle 12 411
News AIDS Walk New York and Gay Men's Health Crisis:... 2 hr Hank 24
More from around the web