Same Sex Marriage Legalized

[Flyfreak 84]

The prohibition against relatives getting married is for health reasons. Not sure why if I think gays should be able to get married I'd be in favor of close relatives getting married and creating sick offspring.

that's a focking old wives tale

[Big Blue 06 195]

I'm in the "Your marriage doesn't affect mine" camp, but I'm not one of those getting all "jazz hands" over the decision. I think it would have been hilarious if this had gotten shot down.

This. I didn't really care either way before, I don't really care either way now. Good for the gheys.

[MDC 5,917]

 

I would guess the law in all 50 states.

My point was the same sex marriage ruling doesn't bring us any closer to incest / siblings marrying.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

that's a focking old wives tale

Well, if that's true, then let the sick docks marry their sister I guess.

[jerryskids 5,247]

that's a focking old wives tale

 

Incest laws seem to be socially rather than genetically based, but I'm guessing there are biological consequences too. So what are the exact genetic risks of two siblings having a child together?

A curious adult from Texas

December 12, 2008

You're probably right that many incest laws are socially rather than biologically based. This is certainly the case in ones that forbid first cousin marriage.

Many cultures encourage first cousin marriages and their kids seem to be pretty safe. Recent studies have shown that the risk for first cousins to pass on diseases is only 2-3% higher than for unrelated people.

But there is definitely good biology behind the laws that prohibit brothers and sisters from having children. The risk for passing down a genetic disease is much higher for siblings than first cousins.

To be more specific, two siblings who have kids together have a higher chance of passing on a recessive disease to their kids. What does this mean?

To explain "recessive", we need to remember that we have two copies of most of our genes -- one from mom and one from dad. And these genes can come in different versions (also called alleles).

Recessive means that both copies of a gene need to be the same version for it to have an effect. Common recessive traits are red hair or blue eyes. Common recessive diseases are cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia.

Copies of genes that do not work well (or at all) can cause recessive diseases. But usually they only cause the disease if both copies of a gene don't work. You only need one working copy because it can compensate for the copy that doesn't work.

All of us have some recessive disease genes, but we usually have a second, working copy of that gene to make us healthy. When you have one normal copy and one disease copy of a gene, you are called a "carrier" of the disease. Carriers don't show signs of the disease, but they can pass the disease version of the gene to their kids. However, BOTH parents must be carriers in order for their children to have a chance of getting the disease.

There are many different recessive diseases and they tend to be rare. What this means is that two unrelated parents are most likely carriers of different disease genes from each other. If they have kids together, the kids will probably get at least one good copy of any one of those genes. And so the kids are unlikely to get those diseases.

On the other hand, siblings are very closely related. So they are much more likely to be carriers of the same diseases. And their kids are more likely to get two broken copies of those genes and end up with the disease. But how much more likely?

It turns out that two siblings are 50% related. This means that for any given gene there is a 1 in 4 chance that they have the same copy as each other.

...

 

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask243

[JTB 52]

I don't understand why it's a slippery slope.

Did the legalization of gay marriage happen because of something legalized previously? Did this all start because the judges said "Well, we are letting white people marry black people now, so do we now have to look at the gays?"

Official reasoning hogwash aside, I think it was legalized because society was in favor of it being legalized. So if marrying a horse is legalized in 5 years, it will probably be because society is in favor of it.

It's not the "marriage thing" that's a slippery slope as much as the equal rights for EVERYONE/THING since we are to be tolerant to ALL.

 

By the way, my right to be a walk in public naked has been stripped from me. It does not hurt anyone yet has been deemed illegal.

[IGotWorms 3,351]

It's not the "marriage thing" that's a slippery slope as much as the equal rights for EVERYONE/THING since we are to be tolerant to ALL.

 

By the way, my right to be a walk in public naked has been stripped from me. It does not hurt anyone yet has been deemed illegal.

Pretty sure it hurt every woman who ever saw you naked.

 

Or man, if that's your thing

[SUXBNME 1,346]

 

Actually, not since 2003

 

As of April 2014, 17 states either have not yet formally repealed their laws against sexual activity among consenting adult, or have not revised them to accurately reflect their true scope in the aftermath of Lawrence v. Texas.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States

[Thornton Melon 546]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States

 

Well, it's not illegal if they can't enforce it, right?

[JTB 52]

Pretty sure it hurt every woman who ever saw you naked.

Or man, if that's your thing

How bout a serious reply?

[Frank M 181]

that's a focking old wives tale

Actually, it focking genetics.

[KSB2424 3,085]

As soon as "gov't" got in the marriage business, the Church lost this battle.

[IGotWorms 3,351]

How bout a serious reply?

To a retarded question? Nah

[JTB 52]

To a retarded question? Nah

Didn't ask a question in my op fuckchop.

[IGotWorms 3,351]

Didn't ask a question in my op fuckchop.

Then why ask for a reply?

[Mike Honcho 4,055]

As soon as "gov't" got in the marriage business, the Church lost this battle.

 

 

What has the Church lost?

[JTB 52]

Then why ask for a reply?

Didn't ask a question and you answered again. Why?

[KSB2424 3,085]

 

 

What has the Church lost?

 

Marriage is no longer just between a man and a woman. The Supreme Court and Federal government just said so. There has been sort of an issue surrounding this topic for a while now.

 

My point is that once the Government got in the business of Marriage, the 'entity' that defined marriage went to the Gov't as well. It's why I think ghey marraige should be legal.

 

If the gov't wasn't in the marriage business (benefits, healthcare, taxes, etc.) I would tell the gov't to go fock themselves and butt out of trying to redefine the private sector.

[Sho Nuff 720]

 

Marriage is no longer just between a man and a woman. The Supreme Court and Federal government just said so. There has been sort of an issue surrounding this topic for a while now.

 

My point is that once the Government got in the business of Marriage, the 'entity' that defined marriage went to the Gov't as well. It's why I think ghey marraige should be legal.

 

If the gov't wasn't in the marriage business (benefits, healthcare, taxes, etc.) I would tell the gov't to go fock themselves and butt out of trying to redefine the private sector.

So what dod the church lose?

 

They can still marry people right?

[tanatastic 2,061]

What has the Church lost?

 

They lost exclusivity to enforce their archaic ideals based on fictional fabrications from 2000yrs ago.

[KSB2424 3,085]

So what dod the church lose?

 

They can still marry people right?

 

JFC you folks like to parse words, and go on semantic tangents.

 

When I say the "church" I mean the people who define what marriage is based on religion and the historical laws of the land. Those people lost the argument, the battle of how marriage is defined.

 

I am for Ghey Marriage. I voted in favor of it in my state a few years ago. The reason being is that since the Gov't is in the business of marraige and since there are gov't regulated benefits associated then ghey folks are just as rightful as anyone.

 

Good Grief.

[Flyfreak 84]

 

 

What has the Church lost?

sexy alter boys

[Magnificent Bastard 190]

Actually, it focking genetics.

He proved you wrong. Accept it and move on, ok?

[IGotWorms 3,351]

 

JFC you folks like to parse words, and go on semantic tangents.

 

When I say the "church" I mean the people who define what marriage is based on religion and the historical laws of the land. Those people lost the argument, the battle of how marriage is defined.

 

I am for Ghey Marriage. I voted in favor of it in my state a few years ago. The reason being is that since the Gov't is in the business of marraige and since there are gov't regulated benefits associated then ghey folks are just as rightful as anyone.

 

Good Grief.

The church is still free to define marriage however it wants

[SUXBNME 1,346]

 

Well, it's not illegal if they can't enforce it, right?

Police in Baton Rouge, Louisiana arrested two men last week under a statute prohibiting “unnatural carnal copulation by a human being with another of the same sex.” Meanwhile, the Supreme Court declared bans on sex between consenting adults more than a decade ago.

The arrest occurred after an officer discovered the two men having sex in the backseat of a car that was parked after hours in a public park. Though a judge eventually threw the “crime against nature” count out, both men were booked into a local prison and at least one of them was still in that prison the afternoon after his arrest.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/02/20/3624719/louisiana-police-arrest-two-men-anti-sodomy-law-declared-unconstitutional-2003/

 

BOUNTIFUL — A high school cheerleading coach and former counselor from BYU's Especially For Youth program has been arrested and accused of sexually abusing a teenage boy who attended the camp.

Keldon Sevren "KC" Cook, 29, was arrested by Bountiful police on Thursday for investigation of three counts of forcible sodomy.

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865626682/Provo-man-who-worked-as-youth-counselor-arrested-in-sodomy-case.html?pg=all

 

 

On the other hand, rejecting Lawrence has long been in vogue in red states. Ten years after Lawrence, 13 states, all of them red or red-leaning, have kept their anti-sodomy laws on the books. And three of them—Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas—explicitly outlaw consenting sex between people of the same sex. In much of red-state America, then, being gay remains officially illegal.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/08/05/gay_people_are_still_being_arrested_for_having_consensual_sex_in_some_red.html

 

[jerryskids 5,247]

He proved you wrong. Accept it and move on, ok?

 

Proved him wrong how? It is genetics; did you see my link? What are you talking about?

[Thornton Melon 546]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/02/20/3624719/louisiana-police-arrest-two-men-anti-sodomy-law-declared-unconstitutional-2003/

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865626682/Provo-man-who-worked-as-youth-counselor-arrested-in-sodomy-case.html?pg=all

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/08/05/gay_people_are_still_being_arrested_for_having_consensual_sex_in_some_red.html

 

 

Huh...that last link is interesting. As for the two examples you gave, your first one is sex in a public place, and the second one is forcible sodomy, i.e., rape (of a minor, no less)

[Frank M 181]

 

Proved him wrong how? It is genetics; did you see my link? What are you talking about?

He has a little boner for me.

[penultimatestraw 473]

I don't care about polygamy, so long as all parties are consenting adults and the tax implications are ironed out.

 

Incestual marriages present problems in terms of reproduction. I don't have a problem with that being prohibited to prevent a bunch of web footed children on the taxpayer dime.

 

Hell, i don't even really give a crap if someone wants to marry a horse. They shouldn't get tax breaks for it though.

The problem with polygamy is potential for coercion, as groups promoting polygamy tend to indoctrinate their community's girls into the idea before they can consent as adults. Incestual marriage is more of the same, especially when it is a parent trying to marry their adult child. The reproductive argument doesn't really hold water, unless you are going to argue that anyone with a heritable condition have limitations on marital rights. And animals can't consent.

 

How often do you think people get married purely for tax benefits? Pretty unlikely, IMO.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

The problem with polygamy is potential for coercion, as groups promoting polygamy tend to indoctrinate their community's girls into the idea before they can consent as adults. Incestual marriage is more of the same, especially when it is a parent trying to marry their adult child. The reproductive argument doesn't really hold water, unless you are going to argue that anyone with a heritable condition have limitations on marital rights. And animals can't consent.

 

How often do you think people get married purely for tax benefits? Pretty unlikely, IMO.

I know they don't get married for tax benefits. But once they are, they abuse it to the max.

[penultimatestraw 473]

I know they don't get married for tax benefits. But once they are, they abuse it to the max.

I just don't see huge tax benefits for being married. For having kids, sure. Otherwise there are only a few tax benefits to being married, and potential penalties as well.

[penultimatestraw 473]

 

Proved him wrong how? It is genetics; did you see my link? What are you talking about?

Should people with autosomal dominant conditions be allowed to marry? Women carrying X-linked traits prevented from having male offspring?

[IGotWorms 3,351]

I just don't see huge tax benefits for being married. For having kids, sure. Otherwise there are only a few tax benefits to being married, and potential penalties as well.

I also don't see how the tax benefits are "abused." You're either married or you aren't. It's not like using tax shelters or whatever

[Magnificent Bastard 190]

The tax benefits of being married depend on the disparity of salary between the two parties. Where the real benefit will come is social security benefits.

[jerryskids 5,247]

Should people with autosomal dominant conditions be allowed to marry? Women carrying X-linked traits prevented from having male offspring?

 

To answer your question, yes. That being said, I would argue that that is an apples to oranges comparison. In your examples you are (hypothetically) proposing that people with an increased risk of having children with medical problems can never marry anyone. For incest, it is a chosen behavior which significantly increases that possibility.

 

Like I said, I'm on the fence about it.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

I also don't see how the tax benefits are "abused." You're either married or you aren't. It's not like using tax shelters or whatever

I was mainly referring to polygamy. It seems like there is one "legal" marriage, and all the sister wives and their offspring are raking in public assistance.

[Bier Meister 1,519]

i would imagine that there is more abuse of the tax benefits when couples divorce and attempt to maintain the status.

[penultimatestraw 473]

 

To answer your question, yes. That being said, I would argue that that is an apples to oranges comparison. In your examples you are (hypothetically) proposing that people with an increased risk of having children with medical problems can never marry anyone. For incest, it is a chosen behavior which significantly increases that possibility.

 

Like I said, I'm on the fence about it.

Procreation is a chosen behavior, too.

 

I'm not advocating for incestuous marriage, mind you. Just don't think it makes much sense to deny it based on the chances of passing on bad genes, when others with an equal or greater chance of producing diseased offspring are allowed to marry.

[penultimatestraw 473]

I was mainly referring to polygamy. It seems like there is one "legal" marriage, and all the sister wives and their offspring are raking in public assistance.

Read Under the Banner of Heaven for specific examples of this. But my point remains, the tax breaks are for having kids, not being married.

[penultimatestraw 473]

The tax benefits of being married depend on the disparity of salary between the two parties. Where the real benefit will come is social security benefits.

The first part is true. Can you explain your second statement?