jakobeast
New member
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,903
- Liked Posts:
- 21
- Location:
- yer ma's pants
[quote name="R K"]
MOW YOUR LAWN!!!![/quote]
I do.
MOW YOUR LAWN!!!![/quote]
I do.
*** Marriage Ruling in Federal Court
- Thread starter noon
- Start date
bri
New member
- Joined:
- May 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 4,797
- Liked Posts:
- 1
[quote name="noon"]
Or as bri put it: boring.
Damned lawyers.[/quote]
Hun, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. I didn't mean you were boring. You just know how to speak the language.
Or as bri put it: boring.
Damned lawyers.[/quote]
Hun, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. I didn't mean you were boring. You just know how to speak the language.
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,533
- Liked Posts:
- 440
Not strictly on topic, but could someone explain to me this separation of church and state thing in the US. From the socialist secular commie hellhole I come from the church (or religion) seem to be all over the politics in the US and there is no separation at all. You have IN GOD WE TRUST on your money, the Pledge of Allegiance talks about ONE NATION UNDER GOD, the president always ends his speeched with GOD BLESS AMERICA, you pretty much have to be a practicing Xtian to have any chance to get elected to any offices and the Xtian lobby groups have huge political pull. How does this separation really practically work?
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,802
- Liked Posts:
- 0
[quote name="roshinaya"]Not strictly on topic, but could someone explain to me this separation of church and state thing in the US. From the socialist secular commie hellhole I come from the church (or religion) seem to be all over the politics in the US and there is no separation at all. You have IN GOD WE TRUST on your money, the Pledge of Allegiance talks about ONE NATION UNDER GOD, the president always ends his speeched with GOD BLESS AMERICA, you pretty much have to be a practicing Xtian to have any chance to get elected to any offices and the Xtian lobby groups have huge political pull. How does this separation really practically work?[/quote]
Separate entities, in that a top religious leader (i.e. Catholic, or even Pope), is not a leader of the nation and also does not have a direct hand determining in policies. Now, religious groups can lobby like any other interest group...which can make it appear that they have a direct hand.
Basically the founders wanted the Catholic church to not have a direct or strong hand at the founding of the nation. They also felt that if a religious organization has too much power and control of a government that too many laws and policies would be geared toward that group or be too "emotional". Also, it could stifle freedom of religion if the separation was not in place. But keep in mind that most of the founders were practicing Christians.
While many politicians may appear to be one religion or another...I would venture to guess that as career politicians they either are not fully practicing of their religion (used just for votes), or would not put all their eggs in a political basket (as there are large groups of people that would fry them).
Finally, there are large sections of the population that are very, partially, occasionally, and not at all religious. So pandering to the majority of the populace is going to add the statements to money and end of speeches...or in the case of the pledge a religious group getting too close to government to make that amendment to the pledge in the 1950's. None of which really matters as much in the modern US anyway.
Separate entities, in that a top religious leader (i.e. Catholic, or even Pope), is not a leader of the nation and also does not have a direct hand determining in policies. Now, religious groups can lobby like any other interest group...which can make it appear that they have a direct hand.
Basically the founders wanted the Catholic church to not have a direct or strong hand at the founding of the nation. They also felt that if a religious organization has too much power and control of a government that too many laws and policies would be geared toward that group or be too "emotional". Also, it could stifle freedom of religion if the separation was not in place. But keep in mind that most of the founders were practicing Christians.
While many politicians may appear to be one religion or another...I would venture to guess that as career politicians they either are not fully practicing of their religion (used just for votes), or would not put all their eggs in a political basket (as there are large groups of people that would fry them).
Finally, there are large sections of the population that are very, partially, occasionally, and not at all religious. So pandering to the majority of the populace is going to add the statements to money and end of speeches...or in the case of the pledge a religious group getting too close to government to make that amendment to the pledge in the 1950's. None of which really matters as much in the modern US anyway.
- Joined:
- May 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,014
- Liked Posts:
- 4
- Location:
- Plainfield, IL
[quote name="BiscuitintheBasket"]
Separate entities, in that a top religious leader (i.e. Catholic, or even Pope), is not a leader of the nation and also does not have a direct hand determining in policies. Now, religious groups can lobby like any other interest group...which can make it appear that they have a direct hand.
Basically the founders wanted the Catholic church to not have a direct or strong hand at the founding of the nation. They also felt that if a religious organization has too much power and control of a government that too many laws and policies would be geared toward that group or be too "emotional". Also, it could stifle freedom of religion if the separation was not in place. But keep in mind that most of the founders were practicing Christians.
While many politicians may appear to be one religion or another...I would venture to guess that as career politicians they either are not fully practicing of their religion (used just for votes), or would not put all their eggs in a political basket (as there are large groups of people that would fry them).
Finally, there are large sections of the population that are very, partially, occasionally, and not at all religious. So pandering to the majority of the populace is going to add the statements to money and end of speeches...or in the case of the pledge a religious group getting too close to government to make that amendment to the pledge in the 1950's. None of which really matters as much in the modern US anyway.[/quote]
I would beg to differ on the bolded. Most (at least of the popular/famous ones) were actually Deists. I could dig up alot of quotes out of letters by Thomas Paine ( who called the bible a pile of dung), jefferson, Washington, John Adams to name a few, where they have some choice words in regard to christianity and religion in general.
lol, I got in an argument with a guy on youtube over the weekend from a guy that posted a video about prop 8 and he said marriage comes from the bible. I named numerous cultures that WERE NOT christian that marriage existed (in fact every culture no matter what and when, had/has some sort of life pairing between to people).
He replied and said something I couldn't comprehend and said see, it comes from the bible, and I decided not to pursue it anymore after that nonsense.
Separate entities, in that a top religious leader (i.e. Catholic, or even Pope), is not a leader of the nation and also does not have a direct hand determining in policies. Now, religious groups can lobby like any other interest group...which can make it appear that they have a direct hand.
Basically the founders wanted the Catholic church to not have a direct or strong hand at the founding of the nation. They also felt that if a religious organization has too much power and control of a government that too many laws and policies would be geared toward that group or be too "emotional". Also, it could stifle freedom of religion if the separation was not in place. But keep in mind that most of the founders were practicing Christians.
While many politicians may appear to be one religion or another...I would venture to guess that as career politicians they either are not fully practicing of their religion (used just for votes), or would not put all their eggs in a political basket (as there are large groups of people that would fry them).
Finally, there are large sections of the population that are very, partially, occasionally, and not at all religious. So pandering to the majority of the populace is going to add the statements to money and end of speeches...or in the case of the pledge a religious group getting too close to government to make that amendment to the pledge in the 1950's. None of which really matters as much in the modern US anyway.[/quote]
I would beg to differ on the bolded. Most (at least of the popular/famous ones) were actually Deists. I could dig up alot of quotes out of letters by Thomas Paine ( who called the bible a pile of dung), jefferson, Washington, John Adams to name a few, where they have some choice words in regard to christianity and religion in general.
lol, I got in an argument with a guy on youtube over the weekend from a guy that posted a video about prop 8 and he said marriage comes from the bible. I named numerous cultures that WERE NOT christian that marriage existed (in fact every culture no matter what and when, had/has some sort of life pairing between to people).
He replied and said something I couldn't comprehend and said see, it comes from the bible, and I decided not to pursue it anymore after that nonsense.
- Joined:
- Sep 28, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,997
- Liked Posts:
- 2,338
- Location:
- Somewhere in Indiana
Simply put, it comes down to something that people don't (and purposely fail to) understand.
I also agree with TSD. It's amazing how many people that subscribe to a religion know barely 5% of the history of that said religion (I am all for you practicing the respectful worship of Mercury-- as long as his speedy nature does not infringe on my or anyone else's well being).
I for one, want dibs on the rights to *** Divorce Court. That's television gold.
I also agree with TSD. It's amazing how many people that subscribe to a religion know barely 5% of the history of that said religion (I am all for you practicing the respectful worship of Mercury-- as long as his speedy nature does not infringe on my or anyone else's well being).
I for one, want dibs on the rights to *** Divorce Court. That's television gold.
CLWolf81
Fan Captain
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,107
- Liked Posts:
- 96
- Location:
- Chicago, Illinois
[quote name="BlackhawkPaul"]Simply put, it comes down to something that people don't (and purposely fail to) understand.
I also agree with TSD. It's amazing how many people that subscribe to a religion know barely 5% of the history of that said religion (I am all for you practicing the respectful worship of Mercury-- as long as his speedy nature does not infringe on my or anyone else's well being).
I for one, want dibs on the rights to *** Divorce Court. That's television gold.[/quote]
And people thought Divorce Court had drama.... Man... *** Divorce Court would be crazier, and I wouldn't be surprised if things from hair pulling to fights over who gets the cat would be involved.
I also agree with TSD. It's amazing how many people that subscribe to a religion know barely 5% of the history of that said religion (I am all for you practicing the respectful worship of Mercury-- as long as his speedy nature does not infringe on my or anyone else's well being).
I for one, want dibs on the rights to *** Divorce Court. That's television gold.[/quote]
And people thought Divorce Court had drama.... Man... *** Divorce Court would be crazier, and I wouldn't be surprised if things from hair pulling to fights over who gets the cat would be involved.
- Joined:
- Sep 28, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,997
- Liked Posts:
- 2,338
- Location:
- Somewhere in Indiana
[quote name="CLWolf81"]
And people thought Divorce Court had drama.... Man... *** Divorce Court would be crazier, and I wouldn't be surprised if things from hair pulling to fights over who gets the cat would be involved.[/quote]
People think that if gays get their way married *** couples are going to be blowing each other in parks next to the big slide.
We all know that shit doesn't begin until 10pm.
Right, Jako?
And people thought Divorce Court had drama.... Man... *** Divorce Court would be crazier, and I wouldn't be surprised if things from hair pulling to fights over who gets the cat would be involved.[/quote]
People think that if gays get their way married *** couples are going to be blowing each other in parks next to the big slide.
We all know that shit doesn't begin until 10pm.
Right, Jako?
CLWolf81
Fan Captain
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,107
- Liked Posts:
- 96
- Location:
- Chicago, Illinois
[quote name="BlackhawkPaul"]People think that if gays get their way married *** couples are going to be blowing each other in parks next to the big slide.[/quote]
The smart ones do it in hotel rooms or someone else's place. The ones who take too many risks or are stupid when it comes to getting some do it in the park.
You'd also be surprised about what happens at 12 noon in some office buildings... :lol:
The smart ones do it in hotel rooms or someone else's place. The ones who take too many risks or are stupid when it comes to getting some do it in the park.
You'd also be surprised about what happens at 12 noon in some office buildings... :lol:
Guest
Guest
come on I just ate lunch.
Ymono37
New member
- Joined:
- May 16, 2010
- Posts:
- 4,005
- Liked Posts:
- 0
- Location:
- Suburbia
[quote name="R K"]come on I just ate lunch.[/quote]He said while pleasuring himself to the thought of it with a used tube sock.
You're just mad you've never been invited.
You're just mad you've never been invited.
CLWolf81
Fan Captain
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,107
- Liked Posts:
- 96
- Location:
- Chicago, Illinois
[quote name="R K"]come on I just ate lunch.[/quote]
At least I wasn't being descriptive about it for heaven's sake. :lol:
At least I wasn't being descriptive about it for heaven's sake. :lol:
- Joined:
- May 12, 2010
- Posts:
- 48,121
- Liked Posts:
- 26,636
Who cares if Gays get married? It's not like it hurts anyone... the things people blow out of proportion are absolutely comical.
LordKOTL
Scratched for Vorobiev
- Joined:
- Dec 8, 2014
- Posts:
- 8,680
- Liked Posts:
- 3,049
- Location:
- PacNW
My favorite teams
[quote name="roshinaya"]Not strictly on topic, but could someone explain to me this separation of church and state thing in the US. From the socialist secular commie hellhole I come from the church (or religion) seem to be all over the politics in the US and there is no separation at all. You have IN GOD WE TRUST on your money, the Pledge of Allegiance talks about ONE NATION UNDER GOD, the president always ends his speeched with GOD BLESS AMERICA, you pretty much have to be a practicing Xtian to have any chance to get elected to any offices and the Xtian lobby groups have huge political pull. How does this separation really practically work?[/quote]
Like has been said, a lot of the founding fathers were diesits, but it was actually the anglican churches and the baptist churches they had issues with. Splitting hairs, I know. Soon after, i believe it was the early 1800's, there was a temperence movement, and most of the leaders of the time were chricitan of some sort or the other.
Anyhow, A lot of the religious B.S. in politics here now is a direct result of the McCarthy-era anti-commie witchhunts as a way to differentiate the "Red-blooded god-fearing americans" from the "Godless commie pinko bastards". In fact, it was then that "Under God", was inserted into the pledge; My dad actually remembers when they changed it to it's current form in the early '50's.
I find the religion portion in this just a feeble grasp at straws. After all, It seems that it's only certain secualr beliefs that show gays and lesbians as "evil", and then with the whole marriage thing, they think that one of the most moly things in their belief system is being violated, when the rite is not theirs and theirs alone. After all, any marriage outside of the church is not under their purvey, but they can't seem to differentiate.
Oh, and lastly, I thought any law passed by the states cannot contradict the constitution, so technically, I think that any law prohibiting *** marriage violates clauses 5 and 14, and thus is unconsitutional even if the states have the right to set their own terms of marriage, they can't override the consitution or its amendments.
Like has been said, a lot of the founding fathers were diesits, but it was actually the anglican churches and the baptist churches they had issues with. Splitting hairs, I know. Soon after, i believe it was the early 1800's, there was a temperence movement, and most of the leaders of the time were chricitan of some sort or the other.
Anyhow, A lot of the religious B.S. in politics here now is a direct result of the McCarthy-era anti-commie witchhunts as a way to differentiate the "Red-blooded god-fearing americans" from the "Godless commie pinko bastards". In fact, it was then that "Under God", was inserted into the pledge; My dad actually remembers when they changed it to it's current form in the early '50's.
I find the religion portion in this just a feeble grasp at straws. After all, It seems that it's only certain secualr beliefs that show gays and lesbians as "evil", and then with the whole marriage thing, they think that one of the most moly things in their belief system is being violated, when the rite is not theirs and theirs alone. After all, any marriage outside of the church is not under their purvey, but they can't seem to differentiate.
Oh, and lastly, I thought any law passed by the states cannot contradict the constitution, so technically, I think that any law prohibiting *** marriage violates clauses 5 and 14, and thus is unconsitutional even if the states have the right to set their own terms of marriage, they can't override the consitution or its amendments.
sth
New member
- Joined:
- May 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 2,851
- Liked Posts:
- 0
- Location:
- Billings, Montana
[quote name="LordKOTL"]
Like has been said, a lot of the founding fathers were diesits, but it was actually the anglican churches and the baptist churches they had issues with. Splitting hairs, I know. Soon after, i believe it was the early 1800's, there was a temperence movement, and most of the leaders of the time were chricitan of some sort or the other.
Anyhow, A lot of the religious B.S. in politics here now is a direct result of the McCarthy-era anti-commie witchhunts as a way to differentiate the "Red-blooded god-fearing americans" from the "Godless commie pinko bastards". In fact, it was then that "Under God", was inserted into the pledge; My dad actually remembers when they changed it to it's current form in the early '50's.
I find the religion portion in this just a feeble grasp at straws. After all, It seems that it's only certain secualr beliefs that show gays and lesbians as "evil", and then with the whole marriage thing, they think that one of the most moly things in their belief system is being violated, when the rite is not theirs and theirs alone. After all, any marriage outside of the church is not under their purvey, but they can't seem to differentiate.
Oh, and lastly, I thought any law passed by the states cannot contradict the constitution, so technically, I think that any law prohibiting *** marriage violates clauses 5 and 14, and thus is unconsitutional even if the states have the right to set their own terms of marriage, they can't override the consitution or its amendments.[/quote]
Your right the Constitution sets the baseline. States can expand rights further than the Constitution but can't reduce them. States can't constrict rights past the constitutional standard.
Like has been said, a lot of the founding fathers were diesits, but it was actually the anglican churches and the baptist churches they had issues with. Splitting hairs, I know. Soon after, i believe it was the early 1800's, there was a temperence movement, and most of the leaders of the time were chricitan of some sort or the other.
Anyhow, A lot of the religious B.S. in politics here now is a direct result of the McCarthy-era anti-commie witchhunts as a way to differentiate the "Red-blooded god-fearing americans" from the "Godless commie pinko bastards". In fact, it was then that "Under God", was inserted into the pledge; My dad actually remembers when they changed it to it's current form in the early '50's.
I find the religion portion in this just a feeble grasp at straws. After all, It seems that it's only certain secualr beliefs that show gays and lesbians as "evil", and then with the whole marriage thing, they think that one of the most moly things in their belief system is being violated, when the rite is not theirs and theirs alone. After all, any marriage outside of the church is not under their purvey, but they can't seem to differentiate.
Oh, and lastly, I thought any law passed by the states cannot contradict the constitution, so technically, I think that any law prohibiting *** marriage violates clauses 5 and 14, and thus is unconsitutional even if the states have the right to set their own terms of marriage, they can't override the consitution or its amendments.[/quote]
Your right the Constitution sets the baseline. States can expand rights further than the Constitution but can't reduce them. States can't constrict rights past the constitutional standard.
FlaHawkFan
New member
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 316
- Liked Posts:
- 0
- Location:
- Charlotte, NC
[quote name="IceHogsFan"]
In other words you think this is a federal issue? If you do then we would have to disagree on the matter. When the people of a certain state have spoken through voting on a particular issue (in this case, for or against homosexual marriage) then they should have that right to do so. I can see the Supreme Court stating such in their decision making process. Stay tuned kids, this is bound to take a few years yet to decide.[/quote]
Discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause is always a federal issue, so yeah, I think this is a federal issue. I'm sorry but just because the people of a state vote to discriminate, that doesn't make the discrimination constitutional.
Do I think the SCOTUS will have the guts to decide that the district court judge was correct in deciding that the State had no overriding reason to treat gays and lesbians differently when it came to marriage? Unfortunately, no, I don't.
In other words you think this is a federal issue? If you do then we would have to disagree on the matter. When the people of a certain state have spoken through voting on a particular issue (in this case, for or against homosexual marriage) then they should have that right to do so. I can see the Supreme Court stating such in their decision making process. Stay tuned kids, this is bound to take a few years yet to decide.[/quote]
Discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause is always a federal issue, so yeah, I think this is a federal issue. I'm sorry but just because the people of a state vote to discriminate, that doesn't make the discrimination constitutional.
Do I think the SCOTUS will have the guts to decide that the district court judge was correct in deciding that the State had no overriding reason to treat gays and lesbians differently when it came to marriage? Unfortunately, no, I don't.
jakobeast
New member
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,903
- Liked Posts:
- 21
- Location:
- yer ma's pants
[quote name="Ymono37"]He said while pleasuring himself to the thought of it with a used tube sock.
You're just mad you've never been invited.[/quote]
That's bullshit.
I always invite him.
And yes BHP, after 10 is a magical hour. Just ask Ymono37.
You're just mad you've never been invited.[/quote]
That's bullshit.
I always invite him.
And yes BHP, after 10 is a magical hour. Just ask Ymono37.
- Joined:
- May 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,014
- Liked Posts:
- 4
- Location:
- Plainfield, IL
[quote name="LordKOTL"]
Anyhow, A lot of the religious B.S. in politics here now is a direct result of the McCarthy-era anti-commie witchhunts as a way to differentiate the "Red-blooded god-fearing americans" from the "Godless commie pinko bastards". In fact, it was then that "Under God", was inserted into the pledge; My dad actually remembers when they changed it to it's current form in the early '50's.
[/quote]
It's amazing how many people arent aware of that. There's been rumblings of people wanting to get rid of the "in God we trust" and "under God" in the pledge (I doubt it would happen in my lifetime). the common retort is "its always been there you cant remove it!" um, no it hasn't.
Personally I could give a crap, but if I followed a religion that had multiple deities maybe I would care.
In fact I am following a new religion:
Raptor Jesus approves of *** Marriage.
Anyhow, A lot of the religious B.S. in politics here now is a direct result of the McCarthy-era anti-commie witchhunts as a way to differentiate the "Red-blooded god-fearing americans" from the "Godless commie pinko bastards". In fact, it was then that "Under God", was inserted into the pledge; My dad actually remembers when they changed it to it's current form in the early '50's.
[/quote]
It's amazing how many people arent aware of that. There's been rumblings of people wanting to get rid of the "in God we trust" and "under God" in the pledge (I doubt it would happen in my lifetime). the common retort is "its always been there you cant remove it!" um, no it hasn't.
Personally I could give a crap, but if I followed a religion that had multiple deities maybe I would care.
In fact I am following a new religion:
Raptor Jesus approves of *** Marriage.
mikita
New member
- Joined:
- May 16, 2010
- Posts:
- 59
- Liked Posts:
- 0
[quote name="FlaHawkFan"]
Do I think the SCOTUS will have the guts to decide that the district court judge was correct in deciding that the State had no overriding reason to treat gays and lesbians differently when it came to marriage? [/quote]
I think it's entirely possible the Supreme Court will eventually uphold the decision, but it's not a slam dunk. Although the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection, the courts do allow the government to treat people differently. Isn't this called the "Lindsley test"? Different classifications can exist if a reasonable basis exists to do so. I believe it also places the burden of proof on the party challenging the law. If the 14th amendment were absolute, and one could argue that it should be judging by the text, not only would *** marriage be legal, but incestuous marriages and polygamy as well. The problem is that "reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder. Who knows what the court will do.
Do I think the SCOTUS will have the guts to decide that the district court judge was correct in deciding that the State had no overriding reason to treat gays and lesbians differently when it came to marriage? [/quote]
I think it's entirely possible the Supreme Court will eventually uphold the decision, but it's not a slam dunk. Although the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection, the courts do allow the government to treat people differently. Isn't this called the "Lindsley test"? Different classifications can exist if a reasonable basis exists to do so. I believe it also places the burden of proof on the party challenging the law. If the 14th amendment were absolute, and one could argue that it should be judging by the text, not only would *** marriage be legal, but incestuous marriages and polygamy as well. The problem is that "reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder. Who knows what the court will do.
- Joined:
- May 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,014
- Liked Posts:
- 4
- Location:
- Plainfield, IL
[quote name="mikita"]
I think it's entirely possible the Supreme Court will eventually uphold the decision, but it's not a slam dunk. Although the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection, the courts do allow the government to treat people differently. Isn't this called the "Lindsley test"? Different classifications can exist if a reasonable basis exists to do so. I believe it also places the burden of proof on the party challenging the law. If the 14th amendment were absolute, and one could argue that it should be judging by the text, not only would *** marriage be legal, but incestuous marriages and polygamy as well. The problem is that "reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder. Who knows what the court will do.[/quote]
That is actually an excellent point. In all seriously an incestuous marriage would probably have similar arguments against it as *** marriage, therefore if *** marriage were allowed, why couldnt jimbob marry his sister?
Biological reasons-check!
Social reasons -check!
religious reasons- che....well God was ok with Lots daughter liquoring him up and riding him like a champion stallion to repopulate the earth because she thought they were the last people alive, so maybe religion is ok with some brother on sister action.
and in the early 20th century marrying your first cousin wasnt even taboo, and thats just a step away from a sibling.
I think it's entirely possible the Supreme Court will eventually uphold the decision, but it's not a slam dunk. Although the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection, the courts do allow the government to treat people differently. Isn't this called the "Lindsley test"? Different classifications can exist if a reasonable basis exists to do so. I believe it also places the burden of proof on the party challenging the law. If the 14th amendment were absolute, and one could argue that it should be judging by the text, not only would *** marriage be legal, but incestuous marriages and polygamy as well. The problem is that "reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder. Who knows what the court will do.[/quote]
That is actually an excellent point. In all seriously an incestuous marriage would probably have similar arguments against it as *** marriage, therefore if *** marriage were allowed, why couldnt jimbob marry his sister?
Biological reasons-check!
Social reasons -check!
religious reasons- che....well God was ok with Lots daughter liquoring him up and riding him like a champion stallion to repopulate the earth because she thought they were the last people alive, so maybe religion is ok with some brother on sister action.
and in the early 20th century marrying your first cousin wasnt even taboo, and thats just a step away from a sibling.
Staff online NOW
-
bamainatlantaYou wake him up, you keep him up