Congrats to gay and lesbians, the US government cannot deny your legitimate marriage

When one's love is divided among multiple partners, the love is lessened - like a "starvation economy." In this sense love is a scarce commodity (like food or other resources) that can be given to one person only by taking it away from another.

Hey, person who is ignoring the question, questions about the genetics of incest, while fascinating, are of little importance because as I've heard from many people, MARRIAGE IS NOT ABOUT PROCREATION ANYMORE.

They aren't. Look up the concept of hybrid vigor (Heterosis). Also if you are talking about dogs, then there is human selective process choosing only the best combinations.

Wrong again. You can check out the breed records of any of the major breeds of beef cattle, dairy cattle, chicken or pigs - you'll be proven wrong on every count.

You are an idiot when it comes to genetics. You have zero understanding of what you speak about. Inbreeding works in domesticated animals because we kill the children who both express the recessive genes causing the genetic diseases. We only allow those children with the combination of genes which produce desirable traits to live.Inbreeding increases the probability of both terrible and good things to occur. In humans, without selection, inbreeding will led to terrible outcomes. One of the first signs is asymmetry in the face.

GenericID wrote:

They aren't. Look up the concept of hybrid vigor (Heterosis). Also if you are talking about dogs, then there is human selective process choosing only the best combinations.

Wrong again. You can check out the breed records of any of the major breeds of beef cattle, dairy cattle, chicken or pigs - you'll be proven wrong on every count.

dADS wrote:

There are basically no valid reasons yet put forward as to why polygamy should be treated any different under the law than homosexual marriage.

Or heterosexual marriage.

Government Cheese wrote:

You are an idiot when it comes to genetics. You have zero understanding of what you speak about. Inbreeding works in domesticated animals because we kill the children who both express the recessive genes causing the genetic diseases. We only allow those children with the combination of genes which produce desirable traits to live.

Inbreeding increases the probability of both terrible and good things to occur. In humans, without selection, inbreeding will led to terrible outcomes. One of the first signs is asymmetry in the face.

Yawn, any chance of some proof here, or are you limited to flinging insults?

You are mistaking the argument. Marriage is not about procreation - I think we are all in agreement there. However, the ban of incestual marriage is to limit birth defects. This does not apply to homosexuality, as homosexuality does not increase the risk of birth defects. If you just wanted to make it illegal for incestual couples to have children and legal for them to marry, I could get on board with that.

Right to gay marriage. Yay! Oops....forgot about a few other rights...

Political "To Do" List

Done:

-Right to Be Gay and Marry

Still to Do:

-Right to all of my income, not just the portion a "progressive" and elitist government tells me is mine;

-Right to purchase health care/health insurance in an unfettered free market, rather than a pseudo-market mandated by government;

-Right to own weapons of self-defense;

-Right to decide when to give to charity, or whether to do so at all, without some pretentious politician preaching to me about the virtues of selflessness (while happily taking millions for books, speaking engagements and other perks of public life);

-Right to be totally free from the initiation of force, whether that force be initiated by obvious criminals, or the ones we elect to office to violate the property and rights of some for the sake of others;

-Right to freedom of speech and association, without threat of lawsuits or government officials breathing down my back;

-Right to not have government assume I'm a criminal merely by virtue of being a private person, and without my knowledge or consent having access to any of my phone or computer records, any time it wishes;

-Right to be protected from the worst criminals of all, religiously fanatical terrorists who like to fly innocent airplane passengers into skyscrapers, without having to listen to my Commander in Chief refer to such ideologies as a religion of "peace" and demanding tolerance and compassion for them.

Other than that, I'm cheering the Supreme Court decision making it easier for gay people to marry.

But what about the right to ... well, just about everything else?

Baby steps, I suppose.

For this reason, China's one-child only law is the best. Parents can give one child 100% of their parent-children love, but if there is more than one child it must be divided up.

Ethical Slut wrote:

When one's love is divided among multiple partners, the love is lessened - like a "starvation economy." In this sense love is a scarce commodity (like food or other resources) that can be given to one person only by taking it away from another.

It's stultifying what some people will argue about.

GenericID wrote:

Government Cheese wrote:

You are an idiot when it comes to genetics. You have zero understanding of what you speak about. Inbreeding works in domesticated animals because we kill the children who both express the recessive genes causing the genetic diseases. We only allow those children with the combination of genes which produce desirable traits to live.

Inbreeding increases the probability of both terrible and good things to occur. In humans, without selection, inbreeding will led to terrible outcomes. One of the first signs is asymmetry in the face.

Yawn, any chance of some proof here, or are you limited to flinging insults?

politiko wrote:

You are mistaking the argument. Marriage is not about procreation - I think we are all in agreement there. However, the ban of incestual marriage is to limit birth defects. This does not apply to homosexuality, as homosexuality does not increase the risk of birth defects. If you just wanted to make it illegal for incestual couples to have children and legal for them to marry, I could get on board with that.

Oh dear, another one posting opinion as proof. Care to back up the claim about birth defects?

politiko wrote:

You are mistaking the argument. Marriage is not about procreation - I think we are all in agreement there. However, the ban of incestual marriage is to limit birth defects. This does not apply to homosexuality, as homosexuality does not increase the risk of birth defects. If you just wanted to make it illegal for incestual couples to have children and legal for them to marry, I could get on board with that.

GenericID wrote:

Oh dear, another one posting opinion as proof. Care to back up the claim about birth defects?

I'm no scientist. If it doesn't cause a higher degree of birth defects than non-incestual marriage, then they can still get married and having kids won't need to be illegal. Have at it.

politiko wrote:

politiko wrote:

You are mistaking the argument. Marriage is not about procreation - I think we are all in agreement there. However, the ban of incestual marriage is to limit birth defects. This does not apply to homosexuality, as homosexuality does not increase the risk of birth defects. If you just wanted to make it illegal for incestual couples to have children and legal for them to marry, I could get on board with that.

GenericID wrote:

Oh dear, another one posting opinion as proof. Care to back up the claim about birth defects?

I'm no scientist. If it doesn't cause a higher degree of birth defects than non-incestual marriage, then they can still get married and having kids won't need to be illegal. Have at it.

Having kids after 35 has a higher degree of birth defects. Should this be banned or the marriages dissolved after the age of 35?

This argument is getting close to eugenics. Should people with undesirable mutations like Autism not be allowed to marry?

dgf wrote:

politiko wrote:

I'm no scientist. If it doesn't cause a higher degree of birth defects than non-incestual marriage, then they can still get married and having kids won't need to be illegal. Have at it.

Having kids after 35 has a higher degree of birth defects. Should this be banned or the marriages dissolved after the age of 35?

dgf wrote:

Having kids after 35 has a higher degree of birth defects. Should this be banned or the marriages dissolved after the age of 35?

The former.

the higher percentage of birth defects after 35 is miniscule, not enough to base public policy on.

Polygamy is a stupid strawman argument. Reciprocity is an important principle in marriage, legally speaking. Spouses have very specific, important and equal rights and duties towards each other. All of that would be out the window if there were more than two parties in a marriage, so you would have to rewrite a massive portion of our laws to accommodate multilateral marriages. Same-sex marriage can be sanctioned just by getting rid of laws that explicitly deny it.

If you either can't grasp the difference or just pretend to not grasp it, you have to be seriously mentally impaired.

Well done, you've fallen right in to the trap; all of the evidence you've produced focusses on forced inbreeding over multiple generations, not single liaisons.

What you've failed to take into account is that the human sons or daughters of incestuous relationships aren't obliged to marry their blood relatives just because their parents did, any more than your parents have the right to choose your sexual partners.

I will agree that closed family groups tend to exacerbate genetic issues, BUT only over multiple generations of very close inbreeding - and since, as previously stated, any offspring of an incestuous relationship would be as entitled to as much sexual freedom as you or I, that isn't going to happen.

I brought up pedigree herds of domestic animals because I wanted to see if you could spot how groups of interrelated animals could keep their health. You failed, would you like to try again?