Homosexuals were warned this would happen

Your post is asinine. There is not one right or privilege that gay American Citizens have that heterosexual American citizens do not also have.

 

You are so very, very bad at this. There were 13'states that had legal same sex marriage when the Supreme Court ruled.

It's very different. Marriage creates a legal kinship where none existed prior. Siblings are already legal kin

Huh?

They do

Nope.

 

incest has nothing to do with marriage
marriage is not about sex
All people means all people without exception, not just those who engaged in sexual activity.

 

Ok, why government benefits for one type of kinship are different from other type of kinship?
I see where you are going. You want to use equal protection only for your personal profit.
As expected.

 

Living arrangement can be asexual (sexless).
Why you unconstitutionally deprive those people equal protection?

 

Bisexuals and straight people can marry the same sex too. Yes, believe it or not, some straight people would want that. A lot of mostly straight people can find themselves attracted to a person of the same sex in the right situation.

But the real problem is that most queer folk didn't have the equal right to marry their partner. That is now corrected. Everyone can marry the person they love so long as both are consenting adults.

The only garbage people here are those who want that undone.

 

I think garbage people are those who want to adjust constitution to make a personal profit
If marriage is not about sex then everyone should be eligible for government benefits.
But guys like want to deny benefits to those who are in asexual relationship.

 

OMG you all make no sense at all, a 16 year old female, obviously not very bright, a Dad not very stable, looks with lusting feelings at his own
daughter ?
What about any shred of decency ?
Then they have sex ? what about pregnancy and birth defects from close Parentage ? genetic errors ?
And Homosexuals are to blame for a Straight perverted father raping his Straight possibly also perverted and likely previously sexually abused by somone else 16 year old daughter ?

Might as well blame Lax gun laws for this perversion and don't forget to blame Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon, and every Bush past present & future !!!!!

Freaks......

 

BTW, two women can marry and not be in a sexual relationship at all and have ZERO sexual attraction for each other, however marriage in order to have the finiancial benefits of marriage, they take care of each other just as any other pair would, at least this is way better than a man raping his own mentally retarded underaged possibly perverted or previously sexually exploited or abused daughter.

 

I don't profit from marriage.

- - - Updated - - -

He isn't

 

People in asexual relationships can get benefits too. Nobody is trying to deny them benefits. You're attacking a straw man.

 

Yes you do with 1000s government benefits.
He is.

 

Why you are stoop to lying?
You know very well that two brothers have no way to get the same benefits as homosexuals, and supreme court asserted that position by ignoring them.

 

Nope

He isnt

- - - Updated - - -

Sibling marriage was not an issue before the court. They couldn't make a ruling on it.

 

Anti-miscegenation for Asians and Indians was not before the court.
Once marriage was debased, there was no reason to prohibit marriage of sibling.
But Supreme Court decision was intentionally constructed to ban equal protection for sexless couples.

 

It must be really dull living in a world of only black and white. All rights have limits whether you like it or not. Marriage has never been available to all people and it never will be. Marriage between immediate family members is prohibited because of the increased risk of birth defects. Marriage between more than two people is prohibited because of the legal complications it creates. Marriage between two people of the same gender was prohibited because some people thought it was immoral, until the Supreme Court ruled that this wasn't sufficient grounds to violate the equal protection clause.

 

If you want to fight for incestuous marriage, go ahead. That doesn't mean that you aren't being absurd and possibly facetious by arguing that giving more people benefits is somehow morally wrong because it hasn't been done for enough people.

 

no, race was.

sibling marriage wasn't before the court. Gender restrictions was.

no it wasn't.

 

And the next sentence says, “History and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries.”

Your tyranny has set the outer boundaries and harmed the children of those actually capable of making them:

“A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.”

Same-sex couples are biologically incapable of having children without a third or more donors of egg or seed, which would be polygamy if they married, but they cannot, thereby due to your tyranny in violation of the third basis children are forced to suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. And when those same-sex marriages fail, what about the custody rights of the third or more, the donors of egg or seed? It makes your whole custody argument a red herring.

The marriage laws at issue, created by tyranny, according to their own argument, thus harm and humiliate the children of polygamy.

Children are taught in elementary school how do divide more than two things, to give a third or more a piece of the pie, fractions are not so difficult it can be used as an argument for tyranny.

And finally the court recognizes their own tyranny:

“While the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, individuals who are harmed need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right.”

Of course you have a problem with logic, and that is obvious.

 

Them are a lot of words and yet say nothing.
There was no logic in all of that.

 

Except studies show that children raised by same-sex couples are no worse off than children from traditional families. And they are certainly better off than they would be in foster care or an orphanage. The only harm these children face is the bigotry of people like you and the only tyranny comes from those who would impose their religious beliefs on others.

 

It is not clear why rights of homosexuals are more righteous then rights of other people.

 

That is exactly right.
once racial purpose of marriage has been removed there was no reason to prohibit marriage between all races.
Once gender is eliminated from the marriage, i.e. original purpose is excluded from definition, there was no reason not to allow siblings to receive equal government benefits.
I think you have confirmed my finding better then myself.

 

So far the biggest insult to intelligence came from you with this gem trying to once again play the tired old Loving vs Virgina race card.

Remind us all how we were all against race, and now we support it....like we will with this disgusting incest if we give it time right?

 

ok?

no, the question of siblings wasn't before the court. it's not relevant to the same sex marriage case.

this is incoherent

- - - Updated - - -

they aren't more righteous