gay marriage bill passed in ny .... wonderful

[tennhouse2]

Originally Posted by ThunderChunk69

Originally Posted by Nako XL

Originally Posted by ThunderChunk69

if this is a good argument then what does it say about gay marriages? 

how many gay couplings produce genetically deformed children?

0
0 can produce healthy offspring as well.

lol but we were talking about having children with genetic disorders, so what does not being able to have kids at all have to do with this?

 

[nako xl]

Originally Posted by ThunderChunk69

Originally Posted by Nako XL

Originally Posted by ThunderChunk69

if this is a good argument then what does it say about gay marriages? 

how many gay couplings produce genetically deformed children?

0
0 can produce healthy offspring as well.

ok.  but they're not passing along detrimental characteristics to their children... so how does a couple that wants to marry for the legal and social benefits compare to someone who wants to have sex (incest is about sex not marriage) with a relative and whose actions will probably HARM more than help?

we don't want a population full of people with the same exact genetics.

i dont understand how people are even arguing this.  to do so you must have absolutely no idea how genetics work.  go look at the royal bloodline and see how they fared.  there's a reason royal families now marry outside.

 

[nako xl]

Originally Posted by ThunderChunk69

Originally Posted by Nako XL

Originally Posted by ThunderChunk69

if this is a good argument then what does it say about gay marriages? 

how many gay couplings produce genetically deformed children?

0
0 can produce healthy offspring as well.

ok.  but they're not passing along detrimental characteristics to their children... so how does a couple that wants to marry for the legal and social benefits compare to someone who wants to have sex (incest is about sex not marriage) with a relative and whose actions will probably HARM more than help?

we don't want a population full of people with the same exact genetics.

i dont understand how people are even arguing this.  to do so you must have absolutely no idea how genetics work.  go look at the royal bloodline and see how they fared.  there's a reason royal families now marry outside.

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by TennHouse2

Originally Posted by ThunderChunk69

Originally Posted by Nako XL

how many gay couplings produce genetically deformed children?

0
0 can produce healthy offspring as well.

lol but we were talking about having children with genetic disorders, so what does not being able to have kids at all have to do with this?

I already addressed this and I'm not sure where exactly he's going with it. Does he think NOT having children (+adoption) somehow equates having children with congenital abnormalities?

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by TennHouse2

Originally Posted by ThunderChunk69

Originally Posted by Nako XL

how many gay couplings produce genetically deformed children?

0
0 can produce healthy offspring as well.

lol but we were talking about having children with genetic disorders, so what does not being able to have kids at all have to do with this?

I already addressed this and I'm not sure where exactly he's going with it. Does he think NOT having children (+adoption) somehow equates having children with congenital abnormalities?

 

[so nyuh shi dae]

Originally Posted by ilpadrino9

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

Originally Posted by ilpadrino9

SO now that gay marriage is allowed, why aren't cousins/siblings allowed to marry? or why is polygamy illegal? If it is between consenting adults with no harm to anyone, then why deny them? In the latter cases, there is a law specifically preventing marriage. Talk about inequality and second class status...

I've addressed this several times. NO ONE is allowed to marry a closely related individual and NO ONE is allowed to marry multiple people at the same time. Therefore, the issue of gay marriage is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the issues of incest and polygamy. In the case of marriage, anyone can get married except for homosexual couples which is why it's an issue of equal rights.

By that rational, gay people aren't denied the right to marry. They can marry any person of the opposite sex that they want. The argument the gay community makes is that they can't marry the person they want to. Under that premise, my argument is valid. 

They are being denied the right to marry someone of the same sex which is discrimination based on the fact that they are a same sex couple. The law, as it stands now, explicitly states that marriage is between and man and a woman which discriminates against marriage between a man and another man and marriage between a woman and another woman. You're trying to compare one situation where only one specific group is denied the same right that is granted to everyone else and two others situations where no one is granted that right. That is why they are separate issues and also why your argument is not valid.

 

[so nyuh shi dae]

Originally Posted by ilpadrino9

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

Originally Posted by ilpadrino9

SO now that gay marriage is allowed, why aren't cousins/siblings allowed to marry? or why is polygamy illegal? If it is between consenting adults with no harm to anyone, then why deny them? In the latter cases, there is a law specifically preventing marriage. Talk about inequality and second class status...

I've addressed this several times. NO ONE is allowed to marry a closely related individual and NO ONE is allowed to marry multiple people at the same time. Therefore, the issue of gay marriage is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the issues of incest and polygamy. In the case of marriage, anyone can get married except for homosexual couples which is why it's an issue of equal rights.

By that rational, gay people aren't denied the right to marry. They can marry any person of the opposite sex that they want. The argument the gay community makes is that they can't marry the person they want to. Under that premise, my argument is valid. 

They are being denied the right to marry someone of the same sex which is discrimination based on the fact that they are a same sex couple. The law, as it stands now, explicitly states that marriage is between and man and a woman which discriminates against marriage between a man and another man and marriage between a woman and another woman. You're trying to compare one situation where only one specific group is denied the same right that is granted to everyone else and two others situations where no one is granted that right. That is why they are separate issues and also why your argument is not valid.

 

[so nyuh shi dae]

Originally Posted by Nako XL

right, but just having a genetic disorder doesnt mean you'll pass it along.  that's why those traits are recessive.

if you are a carrier of a recessive trait and then have a child with your sister who is probably also a carrier, then there's an even greater chance of passing that along to your children as opposed to if you breed with someone from outside of your family.

it's not just the "ick" factor.  it's very logical.

So, what you're arguing is that the chance of passing a genetic disorder along to your offspring should affect whether or not you're allowed to reproduce? This still suggests that certain non-incestuous couples should be denied the right to marry because they both contain the genes that nearly ensures a child with a genetic disorder. We're back to the original issue again.

 

[so nyuh shi dae]

Originally Posted by Nako XL

right, but just having a genetic disorder doesnt mean you'll pass it along.  that's why those traits are recessive.

if you are a carrier of a recessive trait and then have a child with your sister who is probably also a carrier, then there's an even greater chance of passing that along to your children as opposed to if you breed with someone from outside of your family.

it's not just the "ick" factor.  it's very logical.

So, what you're arguing is that the chance of passing a genetic disorder along to your offspring should affect whether or not you're allowed to reproduce? This still suggests that certain non-incestuous couples should be denied the right to marry because they both contain the genes that nearly ensures a child with a genetic disorder. We're back to the original issue again.

 

[DeadsetAce]

some of the people in this thread probably shouldn't be allowed to reproduce

 

[DeadsetAce]

some of the people in this thread probably shouldn't be allowed to reproduce

 

[nako xl]

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

Originally Posted by Nako XL

right, but just having a genetic disorder doesnt mean you'll pass it along.  that's why those traits are recessive.

if you are a carrier of a recessive trait and then have a child with your sister who is probably also a carrier, then there's an even greater chance of passing that along to your children as opposed to if you breed with someone from outside of your family.

it's not just the "ick" factor.  it's very logical.

So, what you're arguing is that the chance of passing a genetic disorder along to your offspring should affect whether or not you're allowed to reproduce? This still suggests that certain non-incestuous couples should be denied the right to marry because they both contain the genes that nearly ensures a child with a genetic disorder. We're back to the original issue again.

no.  redundant genes leads to other disorders.  not just diseases.  so even then two people with recessive trait disorders mating is better than a brother and sister with recessive trait disorders doing so.

variety is the spice of life son.  live by that rule, don't question it and you'll be fine.  there'll be less monster babies too.

 

[nako xl]

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

Originally Posted by Nako XL

right, but just having a genetic disorder doesnt mean you'll pass it along.  that's why those traits are recessive.

if you are a carrier of a recessive trait and then have a child with your sister who is probably also a carrier, then there's an even greater chance of passing that along to your children as opposed to if you breed with someone from outside of your family.

it's not just the "ick" factor.  it's very logical.

So, what you're arguing is that the chance of passing a genetic disorder along to your offspring should affect whether or not you're allowed to reproduce? This still suggests that certain non-incestuous couples should be denied the right to marry because they both contain the genes that nearly ensures a child with a genetic disorder. We're back to the original issue again.

no.  redundant genes leads to other disorders.  not just diseases.  so even then two people with recessive trait disorders mating is better than a brother and sister with recessive trait disorders doing so.

variety is the spice of life son.  live by that rule, don't question it and you'll be fine.  there'll be less monster babies too.

 

[thunderchunk69]

Originally Posted by DeadsetAce

some of the people in this thread probably shouldn't be allowed to reproduce

picking and choosing who can reproduce won't help your argument mister 

edit:

and for the record I'm for gay marriages and I'm surprised NY of all places took this long 

just think some people are going way too hard on the other side of the argument replying with "shut up" and what not

 

[thunderchunk69]

Originally Posted by DeadsetAce

some of the people in this thread probably shouldn't be allowed to reproduce

picking and choosing who can reproduce won't help your argument mister 

edit:

and for the record I'm for gay marriages and I'm surprised NY of all places took this long 

just think some people are going way too hard on the other side of the argument replying with "shut up" and what not

 

[so nyuh shi dae]

Originally Posted by Nako XL

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

Originally Posted by Nako XL

right, but just having a genetic disorder doesnt mean you'll pass it along.  that's why those traits are recessive.

if you are a carrier of a recessive trait and then have a child with your sister who is probably also a carrier, then there's an even greater chance of passing that along to your children as opposed to if you breed with someone from outside of your family.

it's not just the "ick" factor.  it's very logical.

So, what you're arguing is that the chance of passing a genetic disorder along to your offspring should affect whether or not you're allowed to reproduce? This still suggests that certain non-incestuous couples should be denied the right to marry because they both contain the genes that nearly ensures a child with a genetic disorder. We're back to the original issue again.

no.  redundant genes leads to other disorders.  not just diseases.  so even then two people with recessive trait disorders mating is better than a brother and sister with recessive trait disorders doing so.

variety is the spice of life son.  live by that rule, don't question it and you'll be fine.  there'll be less monster babies too.

How likely does a child that comes from two close related parents develop various diseases and disorders? I've never really studied or read about it, so the most I know is that the lack of variation leads can be problematic.

 

[so nyuh shi dae]

Originally Posted by Nako XL

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

Originally Posted by Nako XL

right, but just having a genetic disorder doesnt mean you'll pass it along.  that's why those traits are recessive.

if you are a carrier of a recessive trait and then have a child with your sister who is probably also a carrier, then there's an even greater chance of passing that along to your children as opposed to if you breed with someone from outside of your family.

it's not just the "ick" factor.  it's very logical.

So, what you're arguing is that the chance of passing a genetic disorder along to your offspring should affect whether or not you're allowed to reproduce? This still suggests that certain non-incestuous couples should be denied the right to marry because they both contain the genes that nearly ensures a child with a genetic disorder. We're back to the original issue again.

no.  redundant genes leads to other disorders.  not just diseases.  so even then two people with recessive trait disorders mating is better than a brother and sister with recessive trait disorders doing so.

variety is the spice of life son.  live by that rule, don't question it and you'll be fine.  there'll be less monster babies too.

How likely does a child that comes from two close related parents develop various diseases and disorders? I've never really studied or read about it, so the most I know is that the lack of variation leads can be problematic.

 

[nako xl]

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

Originally Posted by Nako XL

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

So, what you're arguing is that the chance of passing a genetic disorder along to your offspring should affect whether or not you're allowed to reproduce? This still suggests that certain non-incestuous couples should be denied the right to marry because they both contain the genes that nearly ensures a child with a genetic disorder. We're back to the original issue again.

no.  redundant genes leads to other disorders.  not just diseases.  so even then two people with recessive trait disorders mating is better than a brother and sister with recessive trait disorders doing so.

variety is the spice of life son.  live by that rule, don't question it and you'll be fine.  there'll be less monster babies too.

How likely does a child that comes from two close related parents develop various diseases and disorders? I've never really studied or read about it, so the most I know is that the lack of variation leads can be problematic.

It's VERY likely lol.  EVERY bad gene that runs in your family that normally gets passed over in reproduction becomes doubly as likely to become prevalent.

Two people who happen to have the same disease having a baby is no where near as bad as two siblings with the same disease mating.  While it true in both that disease would be just as likely to manifest, you're ignoring all the other repeating genes that you wouldn't share with a non relative.

 

[nako xl]

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

Originally Posted by Nako XL

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

So, what you're arguing is that the chance of passing a genetic disorder along to your offspring should affect whether or not you're allowed to reproduce? This still suggests that certain non-incestuous couples should be denied the right to marry because they both contain the genes that nearly ensures a child with a genetic disorder. We're back to the original issue again.

no.  redundant genes leads to other disorders.  not just diseases.  so even then two people with recessive trait disorders mating is better than a brother and sister with recessive trait disorders doing so.

variety is the spice of life son.  live by that rule, don't question it and you'll be fine.  there'll be less monster babies too.

How likely does a child that comes from two close related parents develop various diseases and disorders? I've never really studied or read about it, so the most I know is that the lack of variation leads can be problematic.

It's VERY likely lol.  EVERY bad gene that runs in your family that normally gets passed over in reproduction becomes doubly as likely to become prevalent.

Two people who happen to have the same disease having a baby is no where near as bad as two siblings with the same disease mating.  While it true in both that disease would be just as likely to manifest, you're ignoring all the other repeating genes that you wouldn't share with a non relative.

 

[james earl zones]

Originally Posted by 0 Xm 0

lotta !**@@ on the train acting straight disrespectful to everyone around them. get in my face your gonna get more equal rights than your looking for.

How did this thread become about incest? Mr. Fantastics.

 

[ilpadrino9]

Originally Posted by Nako XL

Originally Posted by ThunderChunk69

Originally Posted by Nako XL

how many gay couplings produce genetically deformed children?

0
0 can produce healthy offspring as well.

ok.  but they're not passing along detrimental characteristics to their children... so how does a couple that wants to marry for the legal and social benefits compare to someone who wants to have sex (incest is about sex not marriage) with a relative and whose actions will probably HARM more than help?

we don't want a population full of people with the same exact genetics.

i dont understand how people are even arguing this.  to do so you must have absolutely no idea how genetics work.  go look at the royal bloodline and see how they fared.  there's a reason royal families now marry outside.

I don't think anyone is really arguing the genetics of it. The argument is that the laws regarding marriage do not factor risk of genetic disorders in subsequent progeny in deciding whether to allow a marriage. The fact that in every other way, genetic disorders are allowed to be passed on means that it shouldn't be applied to siblings/cousins. Furthermore, the ability to successfully reproduce is an issue the gay community has already addressed. The inability to successfully reproduce should not relegate you to second class status. 

 

[ilpadrino9]

Originally Posted by Nako XL

Originally Posted by ThunderChunk69

Originally Posted by Nako XL

how many gay couplings produce genetically deformed children?

0
0 can produce healthy offspring as well.

ok.  but they're not passing along detrimental characteristics to their children... so how does a couple that wants to marry for the legal and social benefits compare to someone who wants to have sex (incest is about sex not marriage) with a relative and whose actions will probably HARM more than help?

we don't want a population full of people with the same exact genetics.

i dont understand how people are even arguing this.  to do so you must have absolutely no idea how genetics work.  go look at the royal bloodline and see how they fared.  there's a reason royal families now marry outside.

I don't think anyone is really arguing the genetics of it. The argument is that the laws regarding marriage do not factor risk of genetic disorders in subsequent progeny in deciding whether to allow a marriage. The fact that in every other way, genetic disorders are allowed to be passed on means that it shouldn't be applied to siblings/cousins. Furthermore, the ability to successfully reproduce is an issue the gay community has already addressed. The inability to successfully reproduce should not relegate you to second class status. 

 

[james earl zones]

Originally Posted by 0 Xm 0

lotta !**@@ on the train acting straight disrespectful to everyone around them. get in my face your gonna get more equal rights than your looking for.

How did this thread become about incest? Mr. Fantastics.

 

[so nyuh shi dae]

Originally Posted by Nako XL

It's VERY likely lol.  EVERY bad gene that runs in your family that normally gets passed over in reproduction becomes doubly as likely to become prevalent.

Two people who happen to have the same disease having a baby is no where near as bad as two siblings with the same disease mating.  While it true in both that disease would be just as likely to manifest, you're ignoring all the other repeating genes that you wouldn't share with a non relative.

So then your argument becomes the amount of potential genetic diseases that can arise should determine whether a couple can get married.

 

[so nyuh shi dae]

Originally Posted by Nako XL

It's VERY likely lol.  EVERY bad gene that runs in your family that normally gets passed over in reproduction becomes doubly as likely to become prevalent.

Two people who happen to have the same disease having a baby is no where near as bad as two siblings with the same disease mating.  While it true in both that disease would be just as likely to manifest, you're ignoring all the other repeating genes that you wouldn't share with a non relative.

So then your argument becomes the amount of potential genetic diseases that can arise should determine whether a couple can get married.