SCOTUS struck down DOMA

[werepossum]

You think there is enough genetic diversity in a family?

WOW, you really have no clue, do you?

Genetic diversity works BECAUSE people of one family do not procreate but as soon as anyone does, you have a problem...

Seriously, you think that families that are biological families cna have more or less genetic diversity?

Just a FYI, that isn't how that works. Genetics do not diversify in a family tree of incest and that is the fucking point.

Heritable genetic problems are generally due to getting two defective copies of the same gene. Unless both parents have the same defective gene, each child has only a 1:2 chance of carrying the gene. A child born of the siblings would have a 1:4 chance of having two defective copies. That may sound high, but remember that most people do not carry defective genes and not all defective genes cause problems. Bottom line, I wouldn't recommend it but a single generation of incest is unlikely to result in two-headed babies unless the population is inbred to begin with and thus the original parents are more likely to be carrying the same bad genes.

This can also result without incest, as witnessed by the blue Fugates. Two unrelated individuals happened to have the same defective gene, so that one-half of their descendants carried one copy of the gene and one-quarter were blue. But again, such defective genes are relatively rare.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

wow, you really don't want to udnerstand how this works, do you? If you bothered to give a dick about the concept of "natural rights" and the actual role of government in terms of protecting/taking away rights, then you would realize that sourceninja is 100% correct.

SSM marriage has always been the right of any free hominid for as long as any ganglion-twitching hominids said "fuck you all, I'm gonna do whatever the fuck I want!"

That is, essentially, the fucking point of the US constitution. This is the concept of "natural rights." How many godfucking times are you on these pages trying to defend your natural right to own a firearm and defend yourself, demanding that government not take that suppose "natural right" away?

The entire point of these redneck states passing amendments is explicitly to remove a right that once existed--for SS couple to be married. You can not possibly argue your way out of that.

Does it not register with you that "pursuit of happiness" was indeed left intentionally open? I'm glad the forefathers were smarter than you. And you should be, too--you're dream to one day marry your toaster may, indeed, come to pass....

Nehalem's interpretation is consistent with the idea of natural rights. I think there are two sources of misunderstanding here. The first being the distinction between positive and negative rights and the second being the definition of marriage.

I believe there is a negative right to marriage in the sense two (or more) people have the right to define their relationship any way they want without government interference. That fits well within excepted ideas of natural rights. An example of a violation of this right would be anti-sodomy laws.

However, recognition of SSM involves a direct action by the government and includes granting special privileges. If one believes in positive rights then this to could be defined as a right, however myself and many others reject the idea of such positive rights.

Personally, I'm pretty indifferent on whether we should allow SSM. However, I categorically reject the idea that it's an issue of natural rights.

 

[zsdersw]

So you support marrying dogs and toasters?

If the legal and metaphysical barriers that exist which prevent such unions and render them nonsense could be removed, yes, it would have my support.

 

[Onceler]

Every time I see SCOTUS I see SCROTUS

 

[zsdersw]

Every time I see SCOTUS I see SCROTUS

There's lots of them.. POTUS, VPOTUS, FLOTUS, to name a few.

 

[SlickSnake]

Got a scientifically accurate link to back that up?

http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/vaccine-pioneer-doctor-admits-polio-vaccine-caused-cancer/

Here is the smoking gun you asked for.

 

[Brainonska511]

http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/vaccine-pioneer-doctor-admits-polio-vaccine-caused-cancer/

Here is the smoking gun you asked for.

Haha, nice try. Try finding a source without so much bullshit.