Posted on 10/23/2015 8:42:21 PM PDT by 100American
I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court didn't rule that same sex couples need to have sex with each other in order to receive the legal benefits of marriage.
Yup. This what sick looks like when it is allowed to run freely around a society and knock down all the moral and rational pillars. I don’t know who’s sicker, the ones demanding the destructive modifications or the ones standing by and letting it happen. We’ve reached a point where we are no longer making sense.
So, will this be discrimination against brother/sister marriage by allowing brother/brother marriage?
After all, it is all about making gays happy isn’t it?
Why not? EVERYTHING else, every other combination of people, is a-ok in Kalifornia.
2 Timothy 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
I'll marry my Parents to reap the tax benefits and put them on my health insurance.
2 or more elderly siblings living on a family farm, get married.
When one of them decides to identify as a female then they are no longer legally “brothers” so that throws yet another wrench in it. Slippery slope.
Good point. This is just all part of the current scenario of so few people knowing what the definition of true marriage actually is….even before throwing homo marriages into the mix. Once upon a time, there was no problem getting an annulment as long as it was confirmed that there was ‘marital fraud, abandonment, infidelity (sexual withholding as opposed to sex outside the marriage), non-consummation, a refusal of natural obligations’ etc. etc. Once the concept of marriage and the sexual act have nothing to do with each other, the whole thing falls apart. In countries such as Canada where homo marriages have been legal for some time, they have tried to avoid the issue of ‘grandparents marrying sons and daughters to avoid the death tax’ by stipulating that the two parties can’t be genetically related…. but like anything else, this just opens up a whole new can of worms.
Once upon a time, somebody heard the phrase "begs the question," and liked it, and started using it, and didn't bother to find out what it means. And from that single moron, tens of millions of boobs have picked it up.
Now anything goes.
Yep— I framed the same argument but with a Biblical perspective. If the definition of marriage is changed one way, it can be changed a whole lot of other ways. The Bible is very clear about gay sex and incest. Fools ignore it at their own peril.
You are correct sir. I don't see where the perversions end. What combination will some scum bag come up with next?
Soon. A boy and his dog, and then the worst, sharia law polygamy..
Of course the pro-sodomy “marriage” laws should be challenged.
And when the libtards complain that incest is unfairly compared to sodomy, we’ll remind the #ing ass-clowns that the anus is not a vagina.
>> I can foresee a father “marrying” his son and thereby avoiding inheritance taxes.
The state has marginalized marriage to the level of feces. State recognized marriage is now irrelevant save the tax advantages.
Or a Grandpa marry his granddaughter so that she gets social security survivors benefits for 50 years.
This is the way to hang these guys on their own petard. Everyone should do this. But it has to be same gender, to get around the inbreeding. Not a problem with gay marriage! Ha ha.
It’s the nominating of heirs, that is the problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.