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

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?