Replies

And you conveniently over looked the point. If the legislature arbitrarily changed the age of consent to 12 then it would be legal. I.e. arbitrary law. Then you'd have to agree then, right?

I don't see why I couldn't disagree. And what I'd be disagreeing with is the lowering of the age of consent to twelve, not this or that definition of marriage.

If I've ignored your point, I'm not aware of it, but I'm still not sure what it is.

[I]t's the states right to discriminate on the basis of who can or cannot be married, i.e. choosing one form over another.

As I indicated in my earlier post, I'm not persuaded that these two things are the same. Aside from that, though, I tend to agree with SilentServiceCPO that states would still have a reasonable basis for not 'registering' marriages among close relatives.

Aside from that, though, I tend to agree with SilentServiceCPO that states would still have a reasonable basis for not 'registering' marriages among close relatives.

Do you mean to say you've found a special right in some penumbra based on what you do with your jill or johnson?

Because certainly if the new paradigm is "loving relationship" then relatives fill that quite nicely and should be able to get "married" to access the government treasury.

Same for a Grandpa and his grandchild. Why not marry, so long as parental consent is granted, so that the grandkid can collect SS Survivors benefits in perpetuity?

And what I'd be disagreeing with is the lowering of the age of consent to twelve, not this or that definition of marriage.

If you're going to play word Aikido don't bother responding. YOU said if the marriage "wasn't legal" there's no marriage. And since the law is arbitrary and could be lowered to age 12 THEN you'd have to agree to it...because then it would be lawful. If can't admit that you're wasting everyones time which makes you a troll.

I tend to agree with SilentServiceCPO that states would still have a reasonable basis for not 'registering' marriages among close relatives.

Obviously that straw man argument is completely ridiculous and easily dismissed. If it's based on genetic defect possibilities obviously abortion is one remedy. Not to mention those who practice safe sex, have had hysterectomy or vasectomy should also be elegible. Still not good enough, then you must admit same-sex relatives should be allowed right?

How about prohibiting letting those who have genetic defects from marring since they pass their defect on at a 95% rate, much more dangerous than incest.

Waiting patiently for you to change your agument a third time, it seems your style.