It should be clear that the comparison is very similar.both cases deal with intercoarse, both cases deal with constitutional rights. Both cases are using the persons partner as justification. Both cases deal with morality. There is not a closer comparison, if there is I would love to hear it.
You seem to be under the erroneous idea that a law preventing two consenting adults from marrying or having sex would be unconstitutional, in yet you already know that no right is absolute. So explain how gay sex or gay marriage is unconstitutional but not incest or incest marriage? What about gay incest marriage/sex, since there is not birthing issue? Why is that not unconstitutional?
It should be clear that the comparison is very similar.both cases deal with intercoarse, both cases deal with constitutional rights. Both cases are using the persons partner as justification. Both cases deal with morality. There is not a closer comparison, if there is I would love to hear it.
Except one case involves minors who are covered differently under the law. What about this is difficult for you to comprehend?
Now we are getting somewhere. So you mean to tell me, that the right is not absolute and that other laws can supercede that right?
No rights are absolute.
You seem to be under the erroneous idea that a law preventing two consenting adults from marrying or having sex would be unconstitutional, in yet you already know that no right is absolute. So explain how gay sex or gay marriage is unconstitutional but not incest or incest marriage? What about gay incest marriage/sex, since there is not birthing issue? Why is that not unconstitutional?
Does that include who you can marry or have sex with? :)