Should people have to perform/provide services for gay weddings?

[thanatos144]

cant find shit....about incest marriage.... it does bring up a lot of creepy ass websites though.

 

[martybegan]

OK. here's a wild tangent. maybe it should even have it's own thread. but eh, i'm to lazy to start one.

A heterosexual could not marry his/her own brother or sister or cousin. Why? because of the risks of birth defects. Should the same law apply to homosexual couples? or is it not applicable in their case?

I dont think it has to do with genetic defect I think it has to do with cultural norms.... I could be wrong so I will look it up.

THIS is what happens when people marry "in the family"

Charles II of Spain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The inbreeding was so widespread in his case that all of his eight great-grandparents were descendants of Joanna and Philip I of Castile.[8] This inbreeding had given many in the family hereditary weaknesses. That Habsburg generation was more prone to still-births than were peasants in Spanish villages.[2]

Charles II's genome was actually more homozygous than that of an average child whose parents are siblings.[2] He was born physically and mentally disabled, and disfigured. Possibly through affliction with mandibular prognathism, he was unable to chew. His tongue was so large that his speech could barely be understood, and he frequently drooled. It has been suggested[by whom?] that he suffered from the endocrine disease acromegaly, or his inbred lineage may have led to a combination of rare genetic disorders such as combined pituitary hormone deficiency and distal renal tubular acidosis.[

 

[thanatos144]

OK. here's a wild tangent. maybe it should even have it's own thread. but eh, i'm to lazy to start one.

A heterosexual could not marry his/her own brother or sister or cousin. Why? because of the risks of birth defects. Should the same law apply to homosexual couples? or is it not applicable in their case?

I dont think it has to do with genetic defect I think it has to do with cultural norms.... I could be wrong so I will look it up.

THIS is what happens when people marry "in the family"

Charles II of Spain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The inbreeding was so widespread in his case that all of his eight great-grandparents were descendants of Joanna and Philip I of Castile.[8] This inbreeding had given many in the family hereditary weaknesses. That Habsburg generation was more prone to still-births than were peasants in Spanish villages.[2]

Charles II's genome was actually more homozygous than that of an average child whose parents are siblings.[2] He was born physically and mentally disabled, and disfigured. Possibly through affliction with mandibular prognathism, he was unable to chew. His tongue was so large that his speech could barely be understood, and he frequently drooled. It has been suggested[by whom?] that he suffered from the endocrine disease acromegaly, or his inbred lineage may have led to a combination of rare genetic disorders such as combined pituitary hormone deficiency and distal renal tubular acidosis.[

I didnt say there wasnt a risk of genetic deformities I just said I wasnt sure the law was made because of it.... Still looking though

 

[martybegan]

I dont think it has to do with genetic defect I think it has to do with cultural norms.... I could be wrong so I will look it up.

THIS is what happens when people marry "in the family"

Charles II of Spain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Charles II's genome was actually more homozygous than that of an average child whose parents are siblings.[2] He was born physically and mentally disabled, and disfigured. Possibly through affliction with mandibular prognathism, he was unable to chew. His tongue was so large that his speech could barely be understood, and he frequently drooled. It has been suggested[by whom?] that he suffered from the endocrine disease acromegaly, or his inbred lineage may have led to a combination of rare genetic disorders such as combined pituitary hormone deficiency and distal renal tubular acidosis.[

I didnt say there wasnt a risk of genetic deformities I just said I wasnt sure the law was made because of it.... Still looking though

The law is based on cultural norms, but the cultural norms were based on the realization that close relatives having kids produced unviable offspring.

 

[thanatos144]

THIS is what happens when people marry "in the family"

Charles II of Spain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I didnt say there wasnt a risk of genetic deformities I just said I wasnt sure the law was made because of it.... Still looking though

The law is based on cultural norms, but the cultural norms were based on the realization that close relatives having kids produced unviable offspring.

I cant find proof ether way.
Other then wiki's which I distrust all I get is weird pro incest freaks and porn sites.

 

[Spoonman]

OK. here's a wild tangent. maybe it should even have it's own thread. but eh, i'm to lazy to start one.

A heterosexual could not marry his/her own brother or sister or cousin. Why? because of the risks of birth defects. Should the same law apply to homosexual couples? or is it not applicable in their case?

I dont think it has to do with genetic defect I think it has to do with cultural norms.... I could be wrong so I will look it up.

THIS is what happens when people marry "in the family"

Charles II of Spain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The inbreeding was so widespread in his case that all of his eight great-grandparents were descendants of Joanna and Philip I of Castile.[8] This inbreeding had given many in the family hereditary weaknesses. That Habsburg generation was more prone to still-births than were peasants in Spanish villages.[2]

Charles II's genome was actually more homozygous than that of an average child whose parents are siblings.[2] He was born physically and mentally disabled, and disfigured. Possibly through affliction with mandibular prognathism, he was unable to chew. His tongue was so large that his speech could barely be understood, and he frequently drooled. It has been suggested[by whom?] that he suffered from the endocrine disease acromegaly, or his inbred lineage may have led to a combination of rare genetic disorders such as combined pituitary hormone deficiency and distal renal tubular acidosis.[

eh, nothing a few drinks and a paper bag won't correct

 

[martybegan]

I didnt say there wasnt a risk of genetic deformities I just said I wasnt sure the law was made because of it.... Still looking though

The law is based on cultural norms, but the cultural norms were based on the realization that close relatives having kids produced unviable offspring.

I cant find proof ether way.
Other then wiki's which I distrust all I get is weird pro incest freaks and porn sites.

Thats the interwebs for ya.

 

[thanatos144]

The law is based on cultural norms, but the cultural norms were based on the realization that close relatives having kids produced unviable offspring.

I cant find proof ether way.
Other then wiki's which I distrust all I get is weird pro incest freaks and porn sites.

Thats the interwebs for ya.

I feel violated for seeing much the sites. What kind of people think this way??? Its fucking sick

 

[koshergrl]

Everybody is ultimately related.

When it becomes the practice to have offspring only with your own relatives, that's a problem...but only then. It has to do with recessive gene disorders and such.

People who believe they are totally unrelated are still blessed with the occasional child that has horrible afflictions caused by recessive genes. And people who breed animals are also quite familiar with the phenomenon. Eventually, if you isolate the gene pool, there's an overall reduction in viability and vigor. Hence the term "hybrid vigor".

But generally speaking, people who have children with close relatives in this day and age aren't any more likely to produce "monsters" than any other two people off the street.

 

[martybegan]

I cant find proof ether way.
Other then wiki's which I distrust all I get is weird pro incest freaks and porn sites.

Thats the interwebs for ya.

I feel violated for seeing much the sites. What kind of people think this way??? Its fucking sick

Remember Rule 34. If it exists, there is Porn of it.

 

[Spoonman]

Everybody is ultimately related.

When it becomes the practice to have offspring only with your own relatives, that's a problem...but only then. It has to do with recessive gene disorders and such.

People who believe they are totally unrelated are still blessed with the occasional child that has horrible afflictions caused by recessive genes. And people who breed animals are also quite familiar with the phenomenon. Eventually, if you isolate the gene pool, there's an overall reduction in viability and vigor. Hence the term "hybrid vigor".

But generally speaking, people who have children with close relatives in this day and age aren't any more likely to produce "monsters" than any other two people off the street.

the hasidic communities out here have that problem a lot. relatively small communities and the marry within. they have a very high rate of retardation and birth defects. it's really sad.

 

[thanatos144]

Everybody is ultimately related.

When it becomes the practice to have offspring only with your own relatives, that's a problem...but only then. It has to do with recessive gene disorders and such.

People who believe they are totally unrelated are still blessed with the occasional child that has horrible afflictions caused by recessive genes. And people who breed animals are also quite familiar with the phenomenon. Eventually, if you isolate the gene pool, there's an overall reduction in viability and vigor. Hence the term "hybrid vigor".

But generally speaking, people who have children with close relatives in this day and age aren't any more likely to produce "monsters" than any other two people off the street.

Not sure about that... Adam and eve were not the ONLY people in the world. They were just the start of the family line that made the Christ.

 

[The Rabbi]

OK. here's a wild tangent. maybe it should even have it's own thread. but eh, i'm to lazy to start one.

A heterosexual could not marry his/her own brother or sister or cousin. Why? because of the risks of birth defects. Should the same law apply to homosexual couples? or is it not applicable in their case?

I'm not sure how those are similar.
Once you say marriage can be between any consenting adults then you open the door to every form of relationship being called marriage. It is illogical to deny incestuous marriage, or polygamous marriage, once you approve gay marriage. In fact those two have far more claim to legitimacy than gay marriage does.

well i think the incestuous marriage has underlying health issues as the root of its not being allowed. polygamous, I think that would be a tough one to deny. it would be interesting to see the tax implications there

It's a cultural norm,a holdover from European Christian heritage.
In any case, people who are carriers of Tay Sachs disease marry all the time. I'm actually married to one in fact. We dont forbid marriages based on a likelihood of genetic defects. We leave the decision to the individuals.

 

[The Rabbi]

Everybody is ultimately related.

When it becomes the practice to have offspring only with your own relatives, that's a problem...but only then. It has to do with recessive gene disorders and such.

People who believe they are totally unrelated are still blessed with the occasional child that has horrible afflictions caused by recessive genes. And people who breed animals are also quite familiar with the phenomenon. Eventually, if you isolate the gene pool, there's an overall reduction in viability and vigor. Hence the term "hybrid vigor".

But generally speaking, people who have children with close relatives in this day and age aren't any more likely to produce "monsters" than any other two people off the street.

the hasidic communities out here have that problem a lot. relatively small communities and the marry within. they have a very high rate of retardation and birth defects. it's really sad.

Actually they probably have the same rate as most other people. What they dont have is a high abortion rate.

 

[The Rabbi]

Everybody is ultimately related.

When it becomes the practice to have offspring only with your own relatives, that's a problem...but only then. It has to do with recessive gene disorders and such.

People who believe they are totally unrelated are still blessed with the occasional child that has horrible afflictions caused by recessive genes. And people who breed animals are also quite familiar with the phenomenon. Eventually, if you isolate the gene pool, there's an overall reduction in viability and vigor. Hence the term "hybrid vigor".

But generally speaking, people who have children with close relatives in this day and age aren't any more likely to produce "monsters" than any other two people off the street.

Not sure about that... Adam and eve were not the ONLY people in the world. They were just the start of the family line that made the Christ.

They were initially the only people. Everyone else is descended from them.
And even they shared the same DNA, Eve coming from Adam's rib. But given how Adam was created it isnt a problem.

 

[Antares]

[

You are a "fascist" kid....you support forcing others to support whatever you think is right

Look its ok you are gay, I support you in it.

I also support you having all the rights accorded to others...I also support non gays in having their own beliefs....something you can't stomach....because as a "fascist" you need to control those different than yourself.

My sister is gay kid.....you are the one blinded by hatred.

It isn't a matter of "controlling", although society controls to a degree in any event.

Call a co-worker an a racial or homophobic slur, and guess how fast you'll be cleaning out your desk.

(This is where Roo will tell us he's his own boss and a fantastic success in whatever business he's in. because everyone can be rich on the internets....)

The laws that tell business owners they can't refuse customers without good cause are good ones. They need to get over themselves.

Poor Joe, don't hate me because I called you out on your latest lies.

 

[thanatos144]

Everybody is ultimately related.

When it becomes the practice to have offspring only with your own relatives, that's a problem...but only then. It has to do with recessive gene disorders and such.

People who believe they are totally unrelated are still blessed with the occasional child that has horrible afflictions caused by recessive genes. And people who breed animals are also quite familiar with the phenomenon. Eventually, if you isolate the gene pool, there's an overall reduction in viability and vigor. Hence the term "hybrid vigor".

But generally speaking, people who have children with close relatives in this day and age aren't any more likely to produce "monsters" than any other two people off the street.

Not sure about that... Adam and eve were not the ONLY people in the world. They were just the start of the family line that made the Christ.

They were initially the only people. Everyone else is descended from them.
And even they shared the same DNA, Eve coming from Adam's rib. But given how Adam was created it isnt a problem.

where does it say that?

 

[The Rabbi]

Not sure about that... Adam and eve were not the ONLY people in the world. They were just the start of the family line that made the Christ.

They were initially the only people. Everyone else is descended from them.
And even they shared the same DNA, Eve coming from Adam's rib. But given how Adam was created it isnt a problem.

where does it say that?

Where does it say what?

 

[thanatos144]

They were initially the only people. Everyone else is descended from them.
And even they shared the same DNA, Eve coming from Adam's rib. But given how Adam was created it isnt a problem.

where does it say that?

Where does it say what?

that Adam and eve were the only people made or even the first made? God made man the bible didn't say God just made Adam. God made Adam, Eve cause he was unhappy the bible didn't say that women weren't already made prior.

 

[Antares]

Everybody is ultimately related.

When it becomes the practice to have offspring only with your own relatives, that's a problem...but only then. It has to do with recessive gene disorders and such.

People who believe they are totally unrelated are still blessed with the occasional child that has horrible afflictions caused by recessive genes. And people who breed animals are also quite familiar with the phenomenon. Eventually, if you isolate the gene pool, there's an overall reduction in viability and vigor. Hence the term "hybrid vigor".

But generally speaking, people who have children with close relatives in this day and age aren't any more likely to produce "monsters" than any other two people off the street.

Not sure about that... Adam and eve were not the ONLY people in the world. They were just the start of the family line that made the Christ.

Using extra Biblical sources I assume?