My Solution to the same-sex marriage issue

[Mare Tranquillity]

Can you at least answer this part in my post about 40 year olds being banned from having babies? I want to know if you really mean you draw the line at the likelyhood of damaged children. Please

Well, the two situations are quite different in that the danger of a Down's child can be ameliorated with medical care. If I was going to make law on the subject I would have to look at the stats on the likelyhood of a Down's child--how many per hundred thousand live births.

The other thing that probably should taken into account is that only one child is directly affected by the Down's syndrome, they rarely have children of their own (I know of no stats on the incidence of Down's children fathering or mothering other Down's children), but with incestuous relationships we're dealing with genetics which will affect the children for generations to come thus making it a far more serious kind of disorder.

I know that you want me to make a sound byte answer so that you can continue arguing with me, but these are not simple problems. We have a very long, multi-cultural tradition of avoiding incestuous relationships except in certain situations (royalty for instance, but that's the very reason that so many royal families were congenital idiots or bleeders). The mother's health has a lot to do with the health of the child, but with incest that's not the case--it's simply a genetic crapshoot. An interesting sidelight to this is that while the rate of Down's children rises with the age of the mother so does the rate of genius IQ children--even though it's rare.

Unlike same-sex marriage which has none of these problems but is banned for religious reasons, incest has a firm scientific prohibition.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Then are you for banning any woman over the age of 40 from having children? There is a high risk of Downs Syndrome when you reach your 40s. Also, back in the 70s and before that even when a couple wanted to marry they had to get blood tests, if those tests showed non compatible blood types they were denied the right to marry, those tests so rarely came back badly so they discontinued the tests. I have a friend who ended up marrying a man who she would have been denied marriage in the 70s because their kids will all be born with genetic defects. They have two kids and won’t be having anymore unless there is an unexpected pregnancy. Should they be forced to divorce? Isn’t that the same as a brother/sister issue?

No, their children should be euthanized. As you note, the rate of blood incompatability is so low--and can often be dealth with medically--that the tests are no longer done. With incest that is not the case. So, no, it isn't the same at all because one is very rare and the other is quite common.

If there is a brother / sister situation that would want to marry do you think they will refrain from sex because some people don’t think its right? I don’t think so, They will just have sex without marriage. Should they be jailed for doing it? Not my call. I think it’s a very small percent of brother sister couples who would want the right but they would be as entitled as any other person or group and their children would have the same risk as any 40 year old woman getting pregnant I would think.

No, not the same risk at all, nor the same potential for generations of damaged children.

Again I am not personally for this but how can I pick and choose what groups I am willing to support and what groups I am not. Are you against same sex brother / brother marriage or sister / sister? Is it just the baby issue? Are you against cousins who marry? Through out history first and second cousins have married and it was a non issue depending on what part of the world you are from.

Damaged children are my issue, same sex incestuous relationships are not on my radar. The number of these couples is about as rare as masturbating unicorns.

I have never advocated for anarchy. I have only said that marriage should not be in the hands of the federal or state government. It was not in the beginning and it should not be now. It should be a private thing between who ever is getting married. I want police, I want a military I want judges and courts and jails. I just don’t want the government in the marriage business.

All the laws on inheritance will probably go by the wayside and paternity suits will become much more intersting.

I don’t know why it’s dangerous. And I know you think I am just trying to jerk your chain but I am not. Originally I was just thinking about plural marriages and how I thought they had far more rights than any other denied group according to the constitution, but the more I think about it the more I think I want government out of marriage entirely. There will always be a group who feels left out, we will always have this argument as long as the government controls marriage.

This argument also does something else, it makes the gay marriage issue seem really complex, it obscures the real issues of millions of American citizens with maunderings about supposed groups of people for which there is no evidence. You will ALWAYS have people who are unhappy as long as there are laws of any kind, the trick is to cover the most people the best you can and adjust the laws as necessity calls for. Right now millions of people need and deserve marriage equality and they have no risk of Down's children or of incestuous relationships.

 

[Pandora]

Well, the two situations are quite different in that the danger of a Down's child can be ameliorated with medical care. If I was going to make law on the subject I would have to look at the stats on the likelyhood of a Down's child--how many per hundred thousand live births.

The other thing that probably should taken into account is that only one child is directly affected by the Down's syndrome, they rarely have children of their own (I know of no stats on the incidence of Down's children fathering or mothering other Down's children), but with incestuous relationships we're dealing with genetics which will affect the children for generations to come thus making it a far more serious kind of disorder.

I know that you want me to make a sound byte answer so that you can continue arguing with me, but these are not simple problems. We have a very long, multi-cultural tradition of avoiding incestuous relationships except in certain situations (royalty for instance, but that's the very reason that so many royal families were congenital idiots or bleeders). The mother's health has a lot to do with the health of the child, but with incest that's not the case--it's simply a genetic crapshoot. An interesting sidelight to this is that while the rate of Down's children rises with the age of the mother so does the rate of genius IQ children--even though it's rare.

Unlike same-sex marriage which has none of these problems but is banned for religious reasons, incest has a firm scientific prohibition.

That was interesting, the part about kids of incest go on to have more kids where downs syndrome children do not. I had not thought of that.

Later when I get time I will research the chances of having downs kids after certain ages and Ill research the chances of messed up kids in incest.


By the way it’s more common than just in royalty. People with money like the Roosevelt’s. Our President was married to his 2d cousin I believe and many others who wanted to keep the money in the family.

As for it being dangerous and making mentally challenged children, Albert Einstein's parents were cousins, and he married his cousin, too. But that could have been a fluke I suppose.

I don’t really want to argue with you, but I am not good with just accepting things without fully understanding them and without seeing the possible conclusions of where that acceptance will lead down the road. It can not hurt to ask too many questions.

I don’t have anything on brother / sister but I do have this interesting bit on cousins. It seems they are persecuted in the United States but not so much in other countries. I would hope you can appreciate their persecution.



Ill post it below.




When Cousins Get Married
Biology Disputes Taboos Surrounding 'Kissing Cousins'

Sept. 5, 2006 20/20

Everyone wants to fall in love.
It's the stuff of movies, songs and dreams.
But what if you fall in love with your cousin?
For two cousins, romance bloomed when they met as adults after a 20-year absence.
"We ran into each other, at a family reunion," Christie Smith said. "And we just struck it off."
Smith said marrying her cousin, Mark, brought concerns.
"It was very scary, at first. I thought that it was something that was very wrong," she said.
Einstein Kissed His Cuz
Cousins who fall in love have a right to voice concerns. After all, marrying a cousin just isn't done, right?
At least that's what we're taught to believe. Only primitive people who live in isolated places marry cousins, and it's dangerous and leads to creating stupid children.
Or does it? A new study reveals the genetic risks associated with this type of pairing are not as great as once believed.
And consider this — Albert Einstein's parents were cousins, and he married his cousin, too.
FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt were second cousins, so were Prince Albert and Queen Victoria and former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani was briefly married to a second cousin.
In America, marrying your cousin is legal in 25 states and every year about 200,000 cousins wed.
Worldwide, it's much more common. Twenty percent of all married couples are cousins. In some Middle Eastern countries, almost half of all marriages are to cousins.
Those Who Say 'I Do'
But in America, cousins who find love also find public resistance.