Wow! What a nice change of heart. Wonder why he's changing now??

Its not really a change. HIs position was never that he was against it, he just hadnt made a firm choice yet,,,

The election is looming....but good for him! I say let them marry, why should just the heterosexual male suffer?

why should just unrelated lovers suffer

let the siblings and cousins marry too,,,why not???

He's hoping to get more independents and he wants to shore up his gay voters. The problem (for him) is that gay marriage is still unpopular and this will probably hurt him in the long run.

First cousins should legally be able to marry and are in most states. Siblings have an unacceptably high chance of producing children with birth defects.

there is no other category of citizen who is stopped from marrying because of a 'high' chance of producing 'defective' children

its their body and their choice and it shouldnt be used to deny them their 'right' to marry whom they love


(legally arguing the case, that is,,,)

Don't quit your day job.

I take that as no legal rebuttal.

there is a similarly higher risk for 'defect' in children of moms who smoke,, but we dont stop them from marrying

there is a similarly higher risk for 'defect' in childrein of

dwarfs also have a higher risk for 'defective' children, but are not stopped from marrying

so if we arent using a gauge of how likely potential children may be 'defective' (a term I despise, but use in context of this discussion)

for other groups,,, what is the LEGAL Reason we can use it for siblings?

Unfortunately (for you), the facts show that you are clearly wrong.

20-36 percent is quite a spread for TWO Different outcomes (die OR disability),, doesnt really refute anything I said

as I said, there is a 50 percent chance dwarfs will have dwarf children,,,and they are not stopped from marrying

there is a 25 percent HIGHER Risk of defect (the average overall is 3 percent) for mothers who smoke

there are all types of scenarios which pose an INCREASED risk for defect, but none of those people are stopped from MARRYING

because the law has generally not been able to TIE either a responsibility or obligation to HAVE children just because one has gotten married nor does not being married stop people from having children

so children are a SEPERATE issue to marital law,, meaning there is no LEGAL reason to use the potential for defect in children as a basis for denying the 'right' to marriage,,,

The major difference is this: Accumulation of defective genes. Two dwarfs who marry will produce dwarf children 50% of the time. And if their children marry a dwarf, they will also produce dwarf children 50% of the time. But that is the limit of the damage.

The chances of a smoking mother having a child with certain defects is about 2x higher than normal or around 6-8%. Not 25% as you asserted and not all defects.

But if siblings produce children and then those children produce children, each generation multiples the defects and the defects become worse with each generation.

Until you end up with humans who are barely more functional than animals.





Above are pictures of one of these unions. Five of their 19 children are quadrupeds. They have to walk on their hands and feet. They are all also severely mentally retarded.

really?


"Babies born to mothers who smoked had roughly 20% to 30% higher odds of having shortened or missing arms and legs, cleft lips and cleft palates, and abnormally shaped heads or faces compared to babies born to nonsmoking mothers."
http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20110711/smoking-in-pregnancy-raises-birth-defect-risk



thats alot of law based upon 'ifs'

still nothing that can LEGALLY deny the right of a sibling to marry a sibling,, because such pregnancy risks are not used to restrict any other group AND Because marriage does not prevent of ensure pregnancy,,,,,

better we start accepting' defects' as something else and 'defective' children as the same as anyone else,,,than to start discriminating against adults because we are trying to prevent their births,,,,

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/president-obama-affirms-his-support-for-same-sex-marriage.html

President Obama today announced that he now supports same-sex marriage, reversing his longstanding opposition amid growing pressure from the Democratic base and even his own vice president

according to the article it is a change. HIS LONGSTANDING opposition...

Leave it to Harmony to sugar-coat something done by the president!

The operative word is higher. The average chance of a birth defect is 4.4%. If the chance is 30% higher, that means the chance of certain defects is 5.72%. The chances of a sibling-sibling child having birth defects is 20-36%. 4-7x more common than from smoking and they are cumulative through generations.



You don't understand the statistics that you posted. The chances of a sibling-sibling relationship resulting in a terrible deformity or death is much high than for smokers or any other risk group. There is also the problem of cumulative defects. There are plenty of good reasons to make sibling-sibling marriages illegal.

I have left bars walking like that..

I agree.

I just hope after the next election Obama comes out of the closet.

It would be totally awesome to have a black gay president.

You too huh?