Ref 71 Domestic Partnership could be approved in Washington

[del]

When I see this debate descend into convoluted, dissection of legal minutiae I just have to shake my head.

How about taking a look at the forest people?

I think most would agree that nobody has a right not to be offended... correct?

So, apart from spitefully reacting to having one's moral sensibilities offended by homosexuality, what purpose is served by depriving homosexuals of the option to marry each other?

What purpose is served by preventing Incestuous couples from marrying?

it prevents birth defects.

i'll leave it at that rather than break the no family rule.

 

[manifold]

When I see this debate descend into convoluted, dissection of legal minutiae I just have to shake my head.

How about taking a look at the forest people?

I think most would agree that nobody has a right not to be offended... correct?

So, apart from spitefully reacting to having one's moral sensibilities offended by homosexuality, what purpose is served by depriving homosexuals of the option to marry each other?

What purpose is served by preventing Incestuous couples from marrying?

Very little.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

When I see this debate descend into convoluted, dissection of legal minutiae I just have to shake my head.

How about taking a look at the forest people?

I think most would agree that nobody has a right not to be offended... correct?

So, apart from spitefully reacting to having one's moral sensibilities offended by homosexuality, what purpose is served by depriving homosexuals of the option to marry each other?

What purpose is served by preventing Incestuous couples from marrying?

it prevents birth defects.

i'll leave it at that rather than break the no family rule.

However people with KNOWN genetic defects are not barred from marrying nor barred from marrying each other, The incident of birth defects from a single incestuous relationship is so small as to be negligible. However we allow people that have 50 percent or higher chance of passing a serious defect on from procreating and allow them to marry.

 

[manifold]

When I see this debate descend into convoluted, dissection of legal minutiae I just have to shake my head.

How about taking a look at the forest people?

I think most would agree that nobody has a right not to be offended... correct?

So, apart from spitefully reacting to having one's moral sensibilities offended by homosexuality, what purpose is served by depriving homosexuals of the option to marry each other?

What purpose is served by preventing Incestuous couples from marrying?

it prevents birth defects.

i'll leave it at that rather than break the no family rule.

No it doesn't. They can still do what it takes to procreate without tying the knot silly.

 

[Valerie]

But I have shown that there are choices we make against 'nature' every day.... and when something is not inherent to our biology it is inherently do do with our environment, choices, actions, upbringing, exposures, etc

That is true...we make CHOICES on whether to act on things we naturally want to do or not. The question is....why are gay people not supposed to be allowed to make a CHOICE on what gender they are hard wired to love and desire? Can you answer that?



Great...compare Gay people with Nazis.

You can have an opinion and not back it up with fact or reason... and that opinion can easily be dismissed by others... you have every right to have it... but that does not make your opinion fact or a right or anything else, nor should it be used to back up an assertion

Anyone who was raised with a person who turned out gay or raised a person who turned out gay will tell you they could tell at a very early age. Maybe you should listen to those who actually have some experience.

BTW...did you know that anywhere between 4 - 10% of the population is gay....but extended families with at least 1 gay member has a HIGHER chance to have more. Genetic? (at least partially) And when one identical twin is gay, there is over a 50% chance of the other twin being gay too...even if separated at birth. Genetic? (at least partially)

But you have not shown even one piece of evidence that supports your claim of hard wiring.. period.. and they can choose to love or fuck or play around with whomever they want...

Would you rather i make the comparison to being in a particular religion?? Say being taught to be Amish or Mormon?? The particular group or choice or behavior does not matter...

And in terms of homosexuality being more in the 'limelight' there is more of an exposure to it.. and as that exposure has grown, the acceptance and practice of it has grown... as shown by increasing numbers of teens in high school dabbling in bisexual and homosexual activities.... and the tendency that those who are not accepted by the more popular groups do find acceptance then, more readily in a shunned group.... and the exposure evidence and influences can continue to be shown as well

Sorry Dave, I didn't mean to imply that you're a bigot, it's just that these arguments often tend to go off the track..There is no "proof" whether there is a genetic component or not, and although I think there are SOME individuals who "choose" to have homosexual sex, I don't think such individual motivation should matter to the state. IMO sexuality is hardwired, but that's beside the point. People love who they love and all committed relationships are good for the state.

Individuals are free commit to a life partner of their choice and the state can't dictate to committed homosexuals couples that they are less worthy as citizens any more than the state could dictate how many times a heterosexual could marry or whether or not young women can marry old men for money, etc...



And RGS, if you want to marry your sister......just start a petition and see how the united coalition comes together for ya!

 

[del]

What purpose is served by preventing Incestuous couples from marrying?

it prevents birth defects.

i'll leave it at that rather than break the no family rule.

However people with KNOWN genetic defects are not barred from marrying nor barred from marrying each other, The incident of birth defects from a single incestuous relationship is so small as to be negligible. However we allow people that have 50 percent or higher chance of passing a serious defect on from procreating and allow them to marry.

do you really think that you're proving anything at all other than your obvious obsession with incest?

 

[manifold]

RGS' obsession with incest aside, his point is still valid.

If you think it's wrong to deny marriage to queers but ok to deny it to siblings you are being hypocritical. Either make peace with your hypocrisy or change one of your positions. Unless of course you find denial a much easier intellectual path.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

it prevents birth defects.

i'll leave it at that rather than break the no family rule.

However people with KNOWN genetic defects are not barred from marrying nor barred from marrying each other, The incident of birth defects from a single incestuous relationship is so small as to be negligible. However we allow people that have 50 percent or higher chance of passing a serious defect on from procreating and allow them to marry.

do you really think that you're proving anything at all other than your obvious obsession with incest?

I have no obsession, that is just your dislike for the fact your arguments supporting gay marriage apply equally to things you OPPOSE.

 

[Valerie]

However people with KNOWN genetic defects are not barred from marrying nor barred from marrying each other, The incident of birth defects from a single incestuous relationship is so small as to be negligible. However we allow people that have 50 percent or higher chance of passing a serious defect on from procreating and allow them to marry.

do you really think that you're proving anything at all other than your obvious obsession with incest?

I have no obsession, that is just your dislike for the fact your arguments supporting gay marriage apply equally to things you OPPOSE.

I must have missed del's incest marriage opposition thread.


The differences with incest have to do with birth defects.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

do you really think that you're proving anything at all other than your obvious obsession with incest?

I have no obsession, that is just your dislike for the fact your arguments supporting gay marriage apply equally to things you OPPOSE.

I must have missed del's incest marriage opposition thread.


The differences with incest have to do with birth defects.

Already answered this in another thread. Simply not true. A single incident of Incest has such a small possibility for defect as to be meaningless. YET we allow people with KNOWN genetic defect traits to marry and have children even allowing them to marry others with the same or different known genetic defect traits.

Are you now saying we should stop this practice?

 

[Valerie]

I have no obsession, that is just your dislike for the fact your arguments supporting gay marriage apply equally to things you OPPOSE.

I must have missed del's incest marriage opposition thread.


The differences with incest have to do with birth defects.

Already answered this in another thread. Simply not true. A single incident of Incest has such a small possibility for defect as to be meaningless. YET we allow people with KNOWN genetic defect traits to marry and have children even allowing them to marry others with the same or different known genetic defect traits.

Are you now saying we should stop this practice?

Nope, I'm not...just trying to answer your incest comparison.


As I said, citizens are free to petition the state, so go for it!



Your opposition would be the DOMA folks, not the gay marriage supporters.

 

[del]

I have no obsession, that is just your dislike for the fact your arguments supporting gay marriage apply equally to things you OPPOSE.

I must have missed del's incest marriage opposition thread.


The differences with incest have to do with birth defects.

Already answered this in another thread. Simply not true. A single incident of Incest has such a small possibility for defect as to be meaningless. YET we allow people with KNOWN genetic defect traits to marry and have children even allowing them to marry others with the same or different known genetic defect traits.

Are you now saying we should stop this practice?

i never said i opposed incest or polygamy. i only said i wouldn't actively support it. knock yourself out.

 

[bodecea]

I must have missed del's incest marriage opposition thread.


The differences with incest have to do with birth defects.

Already answered this in another thread. Simply not true. A single incident of Incest has such a small possibility for defect as to be meaningless. YET we allow people with KNOWN genetic defect traits to marry and have children even allowing them to marry others with the same or different known genetic defect traits.

Are you now saying we should stop this practice?

i never said i opposed incest or polygamy. i only said i wouldn't actively support it. knock yourself out.

The Clerk has a bee in his bonnet about those topics, doesn't he?

 

[manifold]

Already answered this in another thread. Simply not true. A single incident of Incest has such a small possibility for defect as to be meaningless. YET we allow people with KNOWN genetic defect traits to marry and have children even allowing them to marry others with the same or different known genetic defect traits.

Are you now saying we should stop this practice?

i never said i opposed incest or polygamy. i only said i wouldn't actively support it. knock yourself out.

The Clerk has a bee in his bonnet about those topics, doesn't he?

I've noticed you like to pile-on a lot.

This is not a noble path to acceptance my friend.

 

[bodecea]

i never said i opposed incest or polygamy. i only said i wouldn't actively support it. knock yourself out.

The Clerk has a bee in his bonnet about those topics, doesn't he?

I've noticed you like to pile-on a lot.

This is not a noble path to acceptance my friend.

This is not a pile-on, this is a continuation of a conversation I have been a part of for a while in this and another thread. But thanks for your concern.

 

[manifold]

You're welcome.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And yet no answer to the question, well except maybe buried in over 30 pages of another thread.

It is a simple concept. If Gays are granted the right to marry there is little defense against Incestuous relationships and not much more against multiple partners. Following that the door opens for even more types of supposed acceptable marriage arrangements we haven't even discussed or considered.

 

[JScott]

And yet no answer to the question, well except maybe buried in over 30 pages of another thread.

It is a simple concept. If Gays are granted the right to marry there is little defense against Incestuous relationships and not much more against multiple partners. Following that the door opens for even more types of supposed acceptable marriage arrangements we haven't even discussed or considered.

Incestuous breeding leads to genetic irregularities. It would never, in my opinion, ever reach a popular level. It never has in history, it never will.

Multiple partner marriages have been part of the worlds history since the dawn of man so theres not really much wrong with that either, other than societal acceptance. Most religions endorsed it at some point during their histories.

These are simple concepts in a historical context.

 

[Gunny]

There is a slight lead tonight, of course my side of the state is voting mostly no of Ref 71 with the Seattle area carrying the vote. Lets hope it passes.
Referendum 71 being narrowly approved by voters in early returns | KREM 2 News | KREM.com | When it Matters Most | News

In violation of the 10th Amendment.

 

[Luissa]

how is it in violation of the 10 amendment? Isn't washington state using it's 10 amendment right by passing this law?