+1000000

Love it.

That's the comeback for that garbage.

but the decision does NOT affect laws re: incest, polygamy, and other 'inner family relations,' whose prohibitions ARE rationally based.

No third person that might be harmed is involved.

I think incest laws were just overruled.

Two opposite-sex sterile siblings should've been allowed to marry all this time?

I think the majority ruling yesterday gives them the win.

There's precedent and a line of court cases in Europe:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11119062/Incest-a-fundamental-right-German-committee-says.html

Incest laws are no longer universal.

and of course the rational basis for excluding siblings from marriage is a physiological one, and difficult if not impossible to prohibit married siblings from engaging in behavior that results in procreating. The harmed 'third person' would be the handicapped progeny.

or mother before the ruling using that same genius reasoning.

he could be his own grandpa, like Fry on Futurama.

No you can't marry your brother nor can you marry your dog you idiot.

Canada has had same sex marriage for 10 years and there is little evidence of brother on brother nuptials.

Pride Since 2005

(and we can assume both are gay, so otherwise why would he even ask?), the reason incest is prohibited is because of the dangers of inbreeding. Since he and his brother can't reproduce together, they should go for it! They still might have trouble getting a wedding cake in some towns, though.

In the Bible, there were men with 700 wives and 300 concubines. I hardly think they have a leg to stand on if they complain about polygamy using the Bible. The Bible does not say marriage is between one man and one woman. It's more like one man, hundreds of wives, hundreds of hookers, and in some cases, one man and his daughters, all drunk off their asses, in a cave. The very story they use to condemn gay people the most involves a man who got all pissy about some supposed gay people, then took his daughters up to a cave, got drunk off his ass, and molested his daughters for the rest of the night. The Bible is full of some really fucked up sex. Gay sex is downright modest in comparison to some of the shenanigans that happen in the Bible. I cannot believe gay sex is the thing that squicks them out. Honestly, the thought of molesting daughters, having 700 different wives, 300 concubines, and possibly a partridge in a pear tree, or two, is a lot weirder than anything the GLBT community can come up with, even in our wildest dreams (or nightmares, in the case of what Lot did).

When you put the anti-gay stance of people like that against what the Bible really says, it shows how silly the bigots are being... and how the Bible would make even George R.R. Martin blush. You can really sit there all day pointing out the fetishes, child molestations, prostitution (male and female, all three), and other generally whackadoodle sex habits in the Bible to people like that. None of it phases them.

It's the thought of a woman refusing them and going with another woman that pisses them off. Their feeling that they should be entitled to any woman they want is what is really threatened. When a woman can refuse them and go out with another woman, it infuriates them, especially when the women don't invite them to come watch, like in their pornos.

Porn is most watched in the most oppressive states in America, the very states that are pitching temper tantrums over gay marriage right now. Yeah, they watch the most porn in the whole country too.

It could not possibly get any wackier. Gay people are practically Puritans in comparison to the pervs that hate us. The pervs that hate us give new meaning to what perversion really is. They have fathers mock-marrying their daughters in Purity balls, for fuck's sake. Sanctity of marriage, my ass. Fucking weirdos.

Go right ahead and marry your brother.

Having a child between second cousins is forbidden? What about first cousins?

I know incest would rule it out on a technicality, but really the problem with this "one guy" is that, like a hamster, he is incapable of informed consent.

Because of all your great comebacks, I have ample material to work with. Of course, you all can fire back too.

For anyone here who has read Poe Ballantine's Love and Terror on the Howling Plains of Nowhere, the guy is often referred to as El Crocodilo in the book.

Thanks!

Porn tends to push boundaries.

Is there any brother/sister porn? If so, and it's in the US, has it been prosecuted as incest? "Incest" =/= marriage, but coitus between close relatives.

Is there any any brother/brother or sister/sister porn? If so, and it's in the US, has it been prosecuted as incest?

If there is either kind, is the reaction among good-will viewers that it's somehow immoral or wrong? (By "good will viewers" I mean people who watch it because they find it entertaining, not those who watch it to be able to report to their faithful how perverted it is.)

And are those "good will" viewers considered outliers in their community? Off hand I'd guess that if there's brother/sister porn and the average straight porn viewer brought it up at the water fountain there'd be a fair amount of disgust expressed. It would take a very select group to approve or even just not disapprove. But that might just be me projecting my attitudes--for all I know I'd be the lone wolf and all the other men would be, "Yeah! Can I copy it?" Porn just isn't a viable topic of discussion where I work.

And does this reaction or evaluation, siting as outlier or closer to acceptable, differ between viewers of straight vs gay porn?

I'm not even sure if one person could begin to answer this.