• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

SCOTUS says it does.
 
It is factually correct.
 
scatt said:
But it is. Incest marriage cannot be made illegal any more because of this ruling.
Click to expand...

Nope. Not True. That's why you are unable to point to any text from the ruling that would make your claim correct.
 
scatt said:
Their argument was made broadly enough to easily cover incest marriage.
Click to expand...

Well, cousins can marry. So that's not incest, I guess. The prior definition of marriage (one man, one woman) did not prevent siblings from getting married, yet it was against the law. So there's nothing in this new S.Ct. decision that changes anything regarding siblings getting married. There is a genetic basis for that not being legal, if they are full blood siblings. However, pro-lifers would force a minor to have a baby, even if it is the result of incest, so go figure.
 
JumpinJack said:
The prior definition of marriage (one man, one woman) did not prevent siblings from getting married, yet it was against the law.
Click to expand...

The new policy of any two people specifically allows for incest marriage.

Zinthaniel said:
Nope.
Click to expand...

But it is. I pointed to the specific argument Kennedy made with pages number and sentences.
 
scatt said:
The new policy of any two people specifically allows for incest marriage.



But it is. I pointed to the specific argument Kennedy made with pages number and sentences.
Click to expand...

That is not germaine to incest, any more than the prior definition. The prior definition could have been one man (the brother) and one woman (the sister). Nothing has changed regarding incestuous marriage.
 
JumpinJack said:
The prior definition could have been one man (the brother) and one woman (the sister).
Click to expand...

No, the state was allowed to restrict that before the ruling.
 
scatt said:
The new policy of any two people specifically allows for incest marriage.
Click to expand...

The ruling isn't for any two people. Quote where in the ruling it says that.



But it is. I pointed to the specific argument Kennedy made with pages number and sentences.
Click to expand...

Where does it say that incest couples can marry?

Your contention is that Kennedy says all persons regardless of orientation. But the same wording was used for interracial marriages - just the word race was used instead of orientation.

So again your argument is a bit late.
 
I'm so sick of this issue. It SHOULDN'T matter. It is as irrelevant as what any hetero couple likes to do in their bedroom. It is MADE relevant because some people have an irrational fear of it and they shout and cry and kick and scream in a futile effort to stop the inevitable. You look ridiculous. Stop it.
 
Obergefell is a fallacy?
 
Obergefell is the argument.
 
scatt said:
Obergefell is the argument.
Click to expand...

Your special pleading betwixt marriage court cases and the supposed legalization of incest is the fallacy. In context of your reasoning incest was legalize decades ago as a result of an entirely different marriage court case that decreed any person can marry any other person of any race.
 
Last edited:
Zinthaniel said:
In context of your reasoning incest was legalize decades ago as a result of an entirely different marriage court case that decreed any person can marry any other person of any race.
Click to expand...

It took the new argument in Obergefell to make it apply to incest marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom