necoandjeff wrote:

> "Kevin Gowen" <kgowenNOSPAM@myfastmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2prsmtFokp6tU1@uni-berlin.de...
> 
>>necoandjeff wrote:
>>
>>
>>>TO BE CONTINUED...
>>
>>I've decided to let you have the last word on that part of the exchange.
>>What I am looking forward to is what remains to be continued, in which
>>you will explain how the state is constitutional mandated to issue
>>licenses for same-sex marriage but may refuse to issue licenses for
>>incestuous marriages.
> 
> 
> I see a gauntlet lying on the floor in front of me. I'm fairly certain that
> we filed an amicus brief for the California supreme court case on the
> constitutionality issue. 

On incestuous marriage? May I read it, please?

> Let me talk to some people who have spent more time
> doing the research. And after a quick perusal of the information out there,
> I think you have perhaps dismissed the potential genetic issues of
> incestuous relationships a little too glibly. 

"Home" was a sweet episode, wasn't it?

> I admittedly have not done a
> lot of reading or research into the issue (and I'd love to know why you
> seemingly have...) 

It's an excellent point to be raised in marriage policy discussions, as 
it is a very useful tool for indicating the social taboos held by folks 
who imagine themselves to be above such things. Their first response is 
usually to play Mendel.

> but I do recall a fairly good explanation as to why
> incestuous mating has such a high probability of birth defects and stillborn
> babies in a biology-related book by Carl Sagan (or was it by his wife?.)
> Anyway, for now I'll take their word over yours but let me spend a little
> more time doing some research...

That still doesn't reply to my point that a marriage license is not a 
license to procrate. People procreate with whomever they damn well 
please and the state does not step in. Do you think it should?

You also haven't reply to my point about how the state does not prevent 
people who are carriers for congenital disorders such as Huntington's 
Disease, SCID, and Osteogenesis Imperfecta from marrying, even though 
these disorders can be far more severe and have a risk of developing in 
a carrier's child higher than an inbred child's chances of congenital 
birth defect. Such people are not prevented from marrying, and they 
certainly are not prevented from procreating. What do you suppose we 
should do about that?

Do you look at the royal houses of Europe and say, "Egads! These people 
are severely deformed!"? Do you think thoroughbred horses are severely 
deformed?

Of course, all this talk about procreation leads me to believe that you 
think marriage is about children. I am glad that we agree.

> Jeff
> 
> P.S. Can you give me a general estimate as to how long I'll have to ignore
> this thread before you decide to let me have the last word on this point
> too?

We'll see. You really took yourself a drop length's section of rope when 
you started on about barring incestuous marriages.

- Kevin