We are Democrats .. and we're against gay marriage

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I understand what you're saying, particularly the restrictions placed on the institution by societal constraint. We can still avoid the predictable slippery slope arguments of siblings, animals, groups, etc, by being rational about what marriage means. And these don't for different reasons not in the realm of personal opinion (for the most part).

animals is always silly...

but when it comes to 'consenting adults' what makes the difference?

I'm not talking slippery slope as I don't care what two individuals (or multiple for that matter) do as it does not effect me.

Outside of what one's personal/moral beliefs are, why shouldn't two consenting adults, regardless of relationship, not be allowed to be married if it's an inherent personal choice/individual right?

[Zero Sum 305]

animals is always silly...

but when it comes to 'consenting adults' what makes the difference?

I'm not talking slippery slope as I don't care what two individuals (or multiple for that matter) do as it does not effect me.

Outside of what one's personal/moral beliefs are, why shouldn't two consenting adults, regardless of relationship, not be allowed to be married if it's an inherent personal choice/individual right?

Exactly- it doesn't affect me neither. I draw the line where there are actual rational reasons not to permit it to happen- incest is one example where any offspring would likely concentrate the genetic faults already concentrated in the parents due to inheritance. I don't know enough about genetics but its mathematical. Does this mean I oppose it on those grounds only? Of course not. If brother and sister are weird enough to want to get married, its their problem. If their children are healthy, no problem. If not, there may be a reckoning after they were informed of the potential risks.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Exactly- it doesn't affect me neither. I draw the line where there are actual rational reasons not to permit it to happen- incest is one example where any offspring would likely concentrate the genetic faults already concentrated in the parents due to inheritance. I don't know enough about genetics but its mathematical. Does this mean I oppose it on those grounds only? Of course not. If brother and sister are weird enough to want to get married, its their problem. If their children are healthy, no problem. If not, there may be a reckoning after they were informed of the potential risks.

The risks associated are higher, but not significant overall. That argument truly is the same argument of why two individuals with down syndrome shouldn't be allowed to pro-create. Though there are those who want to stop that, they are not/cannot be denied.

Also as we know in today's populace, people don't need to be married to procreate.

It's as I always tell people, morality changes over time. One moment society believes one thng, the next minute they beleive something different. The problem only comes when government is involved in the first place.

In a nation that's supposed to be based upon liberty/freedom, it truly is absurd that they have any role to play in the relationships of people at all. I know there's the argument of divorce/division of property, etc... However that's what we have lawsuits for. You can't agree on how to divide things? File a lawsuit. You shouldn't need a judge to "OK" your seperation however. That's just as silly as anything else regarding government and its role in 'marriage.'

[Zero Sum 305]

The risks associated are higher, but not significant overall. That argument truly is the same argument of why two individuals with down syndrome shouldn't be allowed to pro-create. Though there are those who want to stop that, they are not/cannot be denied.

Also as we know in today's populace, people don't need to be married to procreate.

It's as I always tell people, morality changes over time. One moment society believes one thng, the next minute they beleive something different. The problem only comes when government is involved in the first place.

In a nation that's supposed to be based upon liberty/freedom, it truly is absurd that they have any role to play in the relationships of people at all. I know there's the argument of divorce/division of property, etc... However that's what we have lawsuits for. You can't agree on how to divide things? File a lawsuit. You shouldn't need a judge to "OK" your seperation however. That's just as silly as anything else regarding government and its role in 'marriage.'

It is a significant risk, actually.

But I agree with you in principle. I do find it striking how a 'moral' individual can be the biggest hypocrite when justifying the unequal and unethical treatment of their brethren at times.

Discrimination is what it is. A modern society has no need for it and hence, may employ the virtues of its government to ensure modernity is not infringed upon.

[Vi-Jay 218]

OK, How 'bout you two lovebirds go outside and share a cigarette via facetime.

I still ain't supporting Same Sex Marriage until the LGBT communty gives up their civil rights fight.

LGBT rights= LGBT Civil Rights =

[Zero Sum 305]

OK, How 'bout you two lovebirds go outside and share a cigarette via facetime.

I still ain't supporting Same Sex Marriage until the LGBT communty gives up their civil rights fight.

LGBT rights= LGBT Civil Rights =

When you lobby your State and Federal legislators to help stop the discrimination, and they do something about it, there will cease to be a civil rights fight.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

It is a significant risk, actually.

But I agree with you in principle. I do find it striking how a 'moral' individual can be the biggest hypocrite when justifying the unequal and unethical treatment of their brethren at times.

Discrimination is what it is. A modern society has no need for it and hence, may employ the virtues of its government to ensure modernity is not infringed upon.

I'll have to look it up, but if I remember correctly the significance was only somewhere around 2-3% more likely on top of the usual for first cousins and for those closer, it was only 7-9% for sibling.

[Zero Sum 305]

I'll have to look it up, but if I remember correctly the significance was only somewhere around 2-3% more likely on top of the usual for first cousins and for those closer, it was only 7-9% for sibling.

From my molecular genetics coursework back in my chem days, I can guarantee that even a 0.1% risk increase is significant. Imagine a 4-5 fold increase. Heavy significance in risk. That is assuming a 1:1 gamete union- and we know there are many many many many sperm that are given nearly equal footing in fertilizing the one or two oocytes.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I still ain't supporting Same Sex Marriage until the LGBT communty gives up their civil rights fight.

What? Homosexuals should not be afforded their civil rights? They should just hunker down and accept that they're being denied their civil rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution? What kind of an argument is that? Are you for real? The good news in all of this is that it matters none, not a first bit, whether or not you support same sex marriage. Your support or lack thereof is as irrelevant as it gets.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[^_^ 5,021]

From my molecular genetics coursework back in my chem days, I can guarantee that even a 0.1% risk increase is significant. Imagine a 4-5 fold increase. Heavy significance in risk. That is assuming a 1:1 gamete union- and we know there are many many many many sperm that are given nearly equal footing in fertilizing the one or two oocytes.

HAL 9000 is one of the only posters on this site who has 3 pages worth of search entries when you look for posts from him containing the world molecular.

[Ban Hammer 13,134]

HAL 9000 is one of the only posters on this site who has 3 pages worth of search entries when you look for posts from him containing the world molecular.

[Zero Sum 305]

HAL 9000 is one of the only posters on this site who has 3 pages worth of search entries when you look for posts from him containing the world molecular.

Is HAL 9000 a degreed chemist?

It must really, really be eating you up.

[^_^ 5,021]

It must really, really be eating you up.

It's just very, very amusing is all.

[Ban Hammer 13,134]

HAL 9000 is one of the only posters on this site who has 3 pages worth of search entries when you look for posts from him containing the world molecular.

you do realize i'll have to report this grammatical error to elmcitymaven....

[^_^ 5,021]

you do realize i'll have to report this grammatical error to elmcitymaven....

grammar was never my strong point.