In response to:

The Tyranny of a .07% Solution

dachs_dude Wrote: Jun 14, 2012 9:40 AM
Here's an interesting fact: Out of the states that have legalized "Gay Marriage", 2, New Hampshire and Iowa, still do not allow first-cousin marriage. I thought that the whole "Gay Marriage" argument was that any adult should be free to marry the "person they love". Yet still the prohibition of first cousin marriage in these states. Does that sound like "marriage equality" to you? If the homosexuals now have the right to marry the "person they love", how is dis-allowing first-cousins, who are allowed to marry in many states, "marriage equality. I'll wait for the reasoned*, logical**, well thought out***, answers from the pro gay marriage crowd to pour in now.
gary47 Wrote: Jun 14, 2012 4:03 PM
Marriage by close relations damages the family by creating redundant kinship and the risk of passing on genetic diseases. Look at hemophaelia from the descendents of Queen Victoria. You can argue whether first cousins are too close or not to remarry, but it's up the legislature to determine this. I don't see any moves to change cousin marriage laws in either direction.

I also don't see states dis-recognizing married cousins who cross state lines. Unlike the hate-filled action from Mr Nimocks and his organization, which has banned comity recognition of marriages from other states, and even banned domestic partner / civil union laws in 21 of the 32 states which have anti-equality amendments. This last is just gratuitous Gay bashing.
dachs_dude Wrote: Jun 15, 2012 10:01 AM
"Marriage by close relations damages the family by creating redundant kinship and the risk of passing on genetic diseases."

I thought marriage wasn't about procreation. Your own side's words. With access to abortion on demand, what's the issue?

The point was that is isn't equality if "someone can't marry the person that they love", is it?

Also, I thought domestic partnership laws that created a "separate but equal" class of couples which, by having all the legal privileges of marriage, except for the word itself, was unacceptable to the activists. Also, it's not ant-equality, any man can marry any women who they aren't related to by various degrees of relation, it's anti-redefining marriage.


dachs_dude Wrote: Jun 14, 2012 9:42 AM
* - name calling e.g. bigot, homophobe
** - insinuation that since I'm against gay-marriage I must be a closet homosexual, (and super-athiest Richard Dawkins must be a closet Christian, right?)
*** - calls to have this post banned for offensive content
It seems that more and more, a small contingent in America is constantly pressuring the majority of Americans to acquiesce to their demands. And to achieve success, the contingent exaggerates its own numbers, so as to seem less peripheral than it really is.

And while this strategy is nothing new in the American experience, it has never served a group better than it’s served those practicing homosexual behavior in the U.S—a group that constitutes approximately 1.4 percent of our population according to the Centers for Disease Control, yet successfully gives the impression that its numbers are...