ballot measure watch - interesting so far

[_Calculus Crusader]

Ron George and his three stooges should not have invented the "right" to gay "marriage" in the first place. Barring that, they should have honored the request from CA citizens as well as the AGs from various states and stayed their decision until after the election. Their hubris and stupidity are to blame for the current situation.

[_Ray A]

Ron George and his three stooges should not have invented the "right" to gay "marriage" in the first place. Barring that, they should have honored the request from CA citizens as well as the AGs from various states and stayed their decision until after the election. Their hubris and stupidity are to blame for the current situation.

I take it that you don't agree with Gay people being able to marry one another?

[_Brackite]

Another Example and Instance: The States of Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming do Not legally allow first Cousin Marriages.

On moral or scientific grounds?

Here is an Article, From Slate:

The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Surname

What's wrong with marrying your cousin?

By William Saletan

Posted Wednesday, April 10, 2002, at 5:32 PM ET


A new group is struggling for acceptance. The group is people who are married to their cousins. These people note that 20 percent of marriages around the world are between first cousins, that Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin married their first cousins, and that first-cousin marriage, while prohibited in half the United States, is legal in Canada and throughout Europe. Now a study by the National Society of Genetic Counselors says that having a child with your first cousin raises the risk of a significant birth defect from about 3-to-4 percent to about 4-to-7 percent. According to the authors, that difference isn't big enough to justify genetic testing of cousin couples, much less bans on cousin marriage. From this, the media have concluded that marrying your first cousin is "OK." Is it?


As Frame Game has argued before, topics such as sex with animals, dog-eating, and sex with cousins are never as simple as they're made out to be. You can't just say the practice in question is icky. You have to state a principle and think through its implications. Often, you have to change your opinions on related issues in order to honor that principle, or you have to throw out the principle and change your mind about the original question.



Is cousin marriage icky? Why? You can't appeal to Victorian morality; Queen Victoria married her first cousin. You can't appeal to the Bible; in the Bible, God commands marriages between first cousins. Instead, advocates of laws against cousin marriage appeal to science. To let cousins marry, they argue, is "to play Russian roulette with genetics." Many genetic diseases are caused by recessive genes. To get the disease, you have to get the bad gene from both parents. The greater the genetic similarity between your parents, the greater your chance of getting two copies of the bad gene.

Here is the Link this Whole Article:

http://www.slate.com/id/2064227/

[_Ray A]

Question for Mormons: Do Gay people have souls? Will your sexual orientation matter to God? What did Jesus say in Matthew 25? Did he ask the person who visited him in prison, "are you Gay?"
>
>
>
>

[_CaliforniaKid]

Seriously, I keep hearing folks say that maybe the existing marriages between gay people will remain valid, but new ones can't be entered into, but I don't see how that can possibly be. The wording of the California Constitution, as of Nov. 5th, is clear. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Period.

Probably the debate will center on whether "marriage" is meant to refer to the ongoing union or whether it merely refers to the ceremony or act of marrying. I suspect that to argue for the latter would be a losing battle, but it might be one worth fighting anyway.

[_Ray A]

Here is an Article, From Slate:

The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Surname

What's wrong with marrying your cousin?

By William Saletan

Posted Wednesday, April 10, 2002, at 5:32 PM ET


A new group is struggling for acceptance. The group is people who are married to their cousins. These people note that 20 percent of marriages around the world are between first cousins, that Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin married their first cousins, and that first-cousin marriage, while prohibited in half the United States, is legal in Canada and throughout Europe. Now a study by the National Society of Genetic Counselors says that having a child with your first cousin raises the risk of a significant birth defect from about 3-to-4 percent to about 4-to-7 percent. According to the authors, that difference isn't big enough to justify genetic testing of cousin couples, much less bans on cousin marriage. From this, the media have concluded that marrying your first cousin is "OK." Is it?


As Frame Game has argued before, topics such as sex with animals, dog-eating, and sex with cousins are never as simple as they're made out to be. You can't just say the practice in question is icky. You have to state a principle and think through its implications. Often, you have to change your opinions on related issues in order to honor that principle, or you have to throw out the principle and change your mind about the original question.



Is cousin marriage icky? Why? You can't appeal to Victorian morality; Queen Victoria married her first cousin. You can't appeal to the Bible; in the Bible, God commands marriages between first cousins. Instead, advocates of laws against cousin marriage appeal to science. To let cousins marry, they argue, is "to play Russian roulette with genetics." Many genetic diseases are caused by recessive genes. To get the disease, you have to get the bad gene from both parents. The greater the genetic similarity between your parents, the greater your chance of getting two copies of the bad gene.

Here is the Link this Whole Article:

http://www.slate.com/id/2064227/

So I was right, it has a scientific basis, which, no doubt, can have an ulterior religious basis. The problem is that no study, available anywhere on earth, concludes that Gay marriage "threatens" heterosexual marriage.

This idea is on paranoid Bubonic Plague proportions. It is so stoopid that no one with a smidgen of intelligence can take it seriously.

[_Brackite]

So I was right, it has a scientific basis, which, no doubt, can have an ulterior religious basis. The problem is that no study, available anywhere on earth, concludes that Gay marriage "threatens" heterosexual marriage.

This idea is on paranoid Bubonic Plague proportions. It is so stoopid that no one with a smidgen of intelligence can take it seriously.

Hello Ray A.,

Are Same Sex Marriages Legally Recognized down under Within Australia?

[_Brackite]

Here is the Corrected Hyper-Link to Cousin-Couples, Listing The States that legally allow first Cousin Marriages, and the States that do Not legally allow first Cousin Marriages:


Cousin-Couples:

[_Brackite]

Nov-06-2008 03:44 AM US Mountain Standard Time

Prop 102
Same Sex Marriage Ban
Prop 102



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Precincts Reporting: 2224 Of 2239 99%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Winner Candidate Incumbent Votes Vote %

X Yes 1,041,722 56%
No 803,097 44%

( http://www.azfamily.com/elections/race102.htm )



Proposition 102 Has Officially Won Within, The Great State of Arizona. Now the Traditional definition and view of Marriage, of one man and one woman, Will be Officially Within the State Constitution of the Great State Arizona. This is truly Great News!.

[_krose]

Ron George and his three stooges should not have invented the "right" to gay "marriage" in the first place. Barring that, they should have honored the request from CA citizens as well as the AGs from various states and stayed their decision until after the election. Their hubris and stupidity are to blame for the current situation.

No, they should have put off their original ruling until after the deadline passed for an initiative. The anti-gay furor would have died down substantially by the time another state-wide election rolled around (I assume two years). Also, a non-presidential election would not attract the same level of voters, and the measure would likely fail.