50 states prohibit closely related couples from marrying, even thought they are of legal age and even if they are of the same sex. Like I said, UNEQUAL by design so not sure what you are going on about.
How so? There are many classifications of individuals that are unable to sign a legal document. If there is legal justification behind the reason then the law will stand, that was lacking when the reason why two same sex members couldn't sign a contract. Marriage is seen as creating legal kinship where none previously existed which would necessarily exclude closely related people. There is also medical evidence that shows severe psychological cohesion, rape, manipulation, and genetic abnormalities within an incestuous union. The only reasons against gay marriage based on supported facts is that it is against some people's religious beliefs and they are unable to naturally procreate. Both of which are irrelevant to contractural law.
This is an interesting take away. What is the effect though? What would be the difference if the two men led productive and happy gay lives? In a free society they could still be married and have children and do all the things they do now. It seems like a wash as far as effective benefit goes. However, the main point you make has merit. Should society be allowed to decide the sexuality of the individual based on personality traits? Is a man gay because he acts dainty, or a woman gay because she is graceless and blunt? If enough people decide this is true will that make it moral to socially compel people to accept being homosexual? All of these are really good questions. The thing is that much of this happens anyway, people tend to sort and filter each other by their behaviors. The question maybe isn't so much whether dainty men should be forced into homosexuality, but rather should society have anything to say about how they act at all, even in their personal sexual life?
Nobody can marry a sibling parent or first cousin. So it isn't unequal. It's equal. So your argument is still dumb.
The hypocrisy of claiming that traditional marriage is unconstitutionally discriminatory against gays, even though EVERYONE, not just gays, was denied government recognition of a marriage between two people of the same sex, while claiming exclusion of closely related couples ISNT discriminatory because everyone is excluded from marrying someone closely related.
Again, I didn't make those claims. It's getting to the point with you that all I ever say in response to your drek is that I didn't make the claims you claim I made. Why is that?
So you would agree with the assertion that traditional marriage limited to men and women wasn't unconstitutionally discriminatory because "Nobody can marry a" person of the same sex. "So it isn't unequal. It's equal"?
That was a yes or no question. I'll interpret "it wasn't" to be an answer of no, and so now you have made the claim you previously claimed you had not. .
Don't interpret, if it isn't clear ask me to clarify. But to clarify, no, i never once claimed that not recognizing same sex marriage is unconstitutional.
You're going to interpret no as no huh? Well I suppose that is correct. Answering no to something isn't making a claim.
Well, you answered no, and then stated a different question than what I had asked. You are hopelessly lost again and I am tiring of drawing maps to help you find your way back.
Well, the first time I interpreted your answer to be a no, you said "Don't interpret, if it isn't clear ask me to clarify" and then the second identical interpretation of no you respond, "No (*)(*)(*)(*) Sherlock". So I was right the first time and you are still a waste of time.
It is a matter of 'human' rights. Catering solely or inordinately to what's "traditional", isn't all that should define people's rights/privileges overall. And that is why "traditional" this/that has been and will be challenged by human beings for centuries. Narrowing-down the 'options' of legal marriage to man/woman, isn't absolutely necessary (and never has been). So, the concept of arguing that tradition against other real options human beings desire or need... is pretty useless overall. Expanding those options reasonably, is what most LGBTQ people are about.
