Thursday, April 4, 2013

Welcome Bill Muehlenberg Readers

If you read what Mr. Muehlenberg wrote closely, he didn't explain his objection to full marriage equality or what I've written at this blog. It appears to be that his religious beliefs do not support it. Well, OK, he doesn't have to do anything he doesn't want to, and neither do you. You don't have to marry anyone you don't want to (even if your church pressures you to.) But should you have the right to deny other adults their consensual relationships? That is imposing your religion on them. I've addressed argument you might have heard against marriage equality. Please take a read. You can still hold your religious beliefs and recognize that other adults should have their freedom of association.

You should also read about people who love each other very much who are being hurt as long as full marriage equality isn't in place. Why would you want to hurt them?

Full marriage equality is inevitable. Please stop trying to deny other adults their rights and instead direct your efforts to something useful, like fighting predators, feeding the hungry, providing shelter to the homeless, etc. Every minute you spend fighting equality in futility is a minute you could have spent fighting against rape.
— — —


  1. You are a disgusting human being

    1. I gladly print comments like yours because they reveal that you have no argument against equality, only hatred for other people for loving each other. It is comments like yours that will help bring about equality sooner rather than later, because most people are not so hateful.

  2. Okay. What would you say to someone like me who is against so called marriage equality, but is angry about predators, cares about the plight of the hungry and the homeless, battered women, etc. I get tired of people like you who appear to attempt to caricature your opponents as blinkered zealots.

    1. I still say that all of the effort you spend opposing equality could be spent helping people instead. Let consenting adults be.

    2. I don't subscribe to the ethic that says "I can do what I like as long as I don't hurt anyone else." A pebble thrown into a pond still creates ripples.

    3. I disagree with the ethical attitude of "How I live my life is my business, and I can do what I like if nobody else gets hurt." When you throw a pebble into a pond, it still creates ripples. In other words, your choices affect me, just as mine affect you.

    4. Denying other adults their freedom of association directly harms them. Meanwhile, you probably can't explain how them loving each other hurt you the the slightest.

    5. Two (or more) consenting adults love each other and want to get married. They want to have a life together. Perhaps have a family. Can you really say that this is a negative thing? Or that it affects you negatively in any way?

      Ripples in a pond... Yes. Perhaps we are ALL ripples in a pond. But, it's not the pebbles making ripples that you have to worry about. It's the boulders: The abusers, the rapists, the murders, the thieves, and child molesters etc. They are the ones that you should be worried about and focusing our efforts on stopping.

      Leave consenting adults alone. Let them live and love the way they choose. There are many more pressing problems in our society. Love is not one of them.

    6. Ross. While you may be correct that actions can have ripple effects you would need to explain exactly how it would affect you here.

  3. It's funny to me when people oppose equality. I mean, what do they think will happen if 3 people get married or half-siblings get married legally? The world won't end. All that will be different is that more couples will not have to hide in the dark about who they love. Whether they know it or not, many people are around others who are in difficult situations that FME could help with. Once couples are found out, so many people try prevent their happiness. It should not change who they are just because they are with someone you don't approve of. Full marriage equality should be pushed and be made legal everywhere. Equality for some is not equality. :3~

    1. True. We are only being hurt by being put in the dark. People like to clame how bad 'it' disrupts the family, but in truth, we never disrupted the family. We never caused any problems at all. Our family's own knee-jerk reactions and their own beliefs is what disrupted the family. They are pulling away from us from their own disgust and pushing us away, not us pulling away from them. Lol we are completely sane. :3 Matter of fact, our love is beautiful. It's the real deal. Most have a hard time finding true love, lol, and here we are, having found it, and being pushed away and told its wrong. Either we push for FME all the way, or there should be no benefits for couples based on marriage, leaving it a civil matter. Likewise, a couple in love (consenting and of age obviously) should definitely NOT BE PROSECUTED for being in love either. Love you sis~:3

  4. I see you are attracting all the hate-fuelled nutters who ingest Muehlenberg's bigoted bile. Great blog, generously spirited. Keep up the good work.

    1. Thanks, Anonymous. I'll be generous here and say that I suspect not all of them are hate-filled. Some are simply unenlightened, and maybe they will gain some understanding after visiting some of the places he complains about! ;-)

    2. Lol! Yes, they could certainly learn something. Ignorance breeds prejudice.

      And just how self-righteous is Ross, inferring that his "ethic" is the only one and that everybody else must subscribe to it. What it basically boils down to is them saying: "I don't like the idea of equal marriage, or people of the same gender having sex, therefore it shouldn't be allowed." I think his views are barking mad, but I respect his right to hold them, no matter how anti-social and harmful to his fellow humans. Sadly the same respect and liberalism is rarely found in the other direction.

  5. It really annoys me when people say there is biblical support to deny people their rights. No, there isn't. How do you think Adam and Eve's kids had kids? Consanguinity and homosexuality, right there. Eve came from Adam's rib. Sounds like a father and daughter relationship to me. Also, the bible talks a lot about young girls marrying their rapists. So, if the bible supports rapists right to marry, and it supports consanguineous relationships, then why do they not advocate for rapists to marry while allowing those in a consanguineous relationship to do so, as well? Hypocrites, the lot of them.

    1. If someone believes that there was a literally Adam and Eve that are the parents of all human beings, then, based solely on the Bible, we have to conclude incest was involved. According to the text, Adam and Eve had sons AND DAUGHTERS (we only are given the names of three... or was it two... sons) and as I've heard fundamentalists explain, Adam and Eve lived hundreds of years in supposed health, and so could have had many more children, and the same for their children.

      Also, later on, if Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives were the only Flood survivors, then then the population started all over again from people who were at least as close as first cousins.

  6. You say that Bill Muehlenberg didn't explain his objection to full marriage equality or what I've written at this blog. Well, no, that was not his goal. He mentioned this site as a refutation of the pro-"same sex marriage" lobby's claims that there is no slippery slope. Regardless of the merits of your arguments, your existence does support that the slippery slope exists.

    As for Adam and Eve's children, you are correct in your facts, but not in your implication. Christian objection to brother marrying sister is not based on an arbitrary "religious" decree, but on the facts of biology, the fact that closely-related parents are more likely to have offspring with manifested genetic defects. That the Bible was apparently aware of this millennia before biological science understood it just lends credibility to the Bible.

    To elaborate, when God created Adam and Eve, they were genetically perfect (God doesn't make faulty things). Hence any offspring from a marriage of pairs of their children would have essentially no genetic problems, because their parents didn't. Over time, however, mutations (genetic copying mistakes) accumulated, increasing the odds of offspring acquiring the same genetic mistakes from both parents (as opposed to receiving a genetic mistake from one parent, but a good copy from the other). Biology shows that this process continues today, with each person born having about 100 more genetic mistakes than their parents, and with those mistakes accumulating much faster than they can be eliminated.

    So although Adam and Eve's children's offspring could marry without problems, and Abraham (who was later than Noah) was able to marry his half-sister without apparent problems, by the time of Moses (later again) the mutations had accumulated enough that God decreed that brother and sister should no longer marry. In more recent centuries, with the accumulation of such mutations, this has been extended in many societies to people who are less-closely related, such as cousins. See for an expanded explanation.

    An anonymous poster above claims that "the bible talks a lot about young girls marrying their rapists". This is false. The bible hardly mentions the subject. The poster is talking about a single mention in Deuteronomy, in which there is a good argument to make that it is not even talking about rape (see But even if it is, the poster's obviously misunderstands the point of the instruction. Rather than the Bible supporting the "rapists right to marry", it is in fact supporting the victim's right to be supported. By having intercourse with her, in the society that this was written for, he's just made her unmarriagable, which meant that she would have nobody to provide for her. The instruction imposes a /responsibility/ on the "rapist" to provide for her, for the rest of her life. Now I can imagine the objections to this from a modern perspective, but the point is that it wasn't supporting a "right" of the rapist, but instead supporting a right for the victim that was about the best available in that society. See also

    1. Mr. Rayment, thanks for giving a serious response rather than the one word "Eew" or the two word "Your [sic] sick", which is all too typical. I'm glad you agree that Muehlenberg didn't bother to explain what is wrong with equality. Slippery slope charges don't worry me. I look at them as akin to, "If we give aboriginal people civil rights, we'll have to give new citizens civil rights, too!!!"

      As far as genetic problems, modern science and medicine allow for planning ahead and treatments now.

      Finally, as far as the rape explanation, I'm intensely curious... why didn't God, or whomever was making the rules in your view, say about being unmarriagable, "Stop punishing women for being raped! There's nothing wrong with marrying a woman who has been raped. Her having been the victim of a crime is in no way an indication that she can't be a good spouse."

    2. Keith, you still seem to miss the point about Muehlenberg's article. He wasn't attempting to answer your arguments, not even with the "slippery slope" argument. He was answering OTHERS who claim that there is NO slippery slope, and using your site as evidence that there was. Whether that slippery slope is a good thing or not is a separate issue.

      Your question about the rape explanation assumes that it IS talking about rape, which, as I pointed out, may in fact not be the case. But continuing the assumption that it is about rape, what you are talking about is asking innocent people (other potential husbands) to accept what they might consider to be less than the ideal because of the actions of another (the rapist). The rapist can be punished, but a potential husband might still prefer a virgin, and as he is innocent, it would be unfair to force a particular wife onto him. His /preference/ for a virgin is not "punishment" of the victim. Quite a few of God's laws for the Israelites took into account the social norms of the time, and although in many cases they opposed those norms, they couldn't simply ignore them.

      I'm not sure how well I've answered that question, but my point is that WHY God did something can depend on a whole lot of factors, including conditions at the time, that can be hard for us to understand, at least without having a very good understanding of all such relevant factors, which a cursory look won't provide. To suggest that God wouldn't do something or could have done something else assumes that we fully understand all the relevant factors, which I would suggest most non-Christians (and many Christians) would simply have no idea about. For example, the Bible teaches that two people who get married become one in some sense, and that this is not limited just to marriage is evident in 1 Corinthians 6:16 which applies this principle to being "joined to a prostitute". So how does this principle apply in a rape? Could that have a bearing on why the rule was the way it was?

      In any case, your question doesn't refute or in any significant way question or undermine my previous explanation, but is a separate issue.

    3. I forgot to address your claim that "modern science and medicine allow for planning ahead and treatments" for genetic problems. I think that this is largely false. First, genetic problems are due, in one sense, /entirely/ to the particular combination of sperm and egg that combine. That is, you cannot predict what particular genetic problems a person will have until after conception. So "planning ahead" is not possible, except in the sense of planning to not procreate.

      As for treatments now, "Many genetic disorders result from gene changes that are present in essentially every cell in the body. As a result, these disorders often affect many body systems, and most cannot be cured. However, approaches may be available to treat or manage some of the associated signs and symptoms."(

      In other words, I think your comment there was a massive hand-waving-away of the problem.

    4. Mr. Rayment, I will leave the religious discussion alone because that isn't the focus of this blog and it was someone else who brought it up anyway. They can continue the discussion with you if they'd like, although I still don't get how whether it the passage was talking about rape or not a omnipotent God couldn't tell men to stop worry about whether a woman was a virgin or not. Plenty of male virgins have been happily married to women who were not virgins when they met, and I never equate assault with sex. To stigmatize someone who has been the victim of assault... well, don't get me started.

      Moving along...

      The fact is, most children born to close relatives are healthy. I know some (you do, too, whether you know it or not.) Some of them are not only healthy, but they are attractive, intelligent, and productive members of society. And of course we know people with disabilities from birth who are also great people.

      I don't know about where you live, but in the US there are states where consensual adult incest is legal. Those states do not report a problem with an usually high number of birth defects. Also, there are states with laws against consensual incest that have no law against say, a brother donating his sperm to his sister. Also, we do not prevent people we know have serious genetic problems from their sexual or reproductive rights. Perhaps you want to? Please, if it is your position that genetically healthy close relatives should be denied these rights but people who are not close relatives who may have some genetic disability should NOT be denied their rights... please explain. I would be very interested in hearing an explanation that doesn't amount to "I think it is icky if close relatives do it."

    5. What religious discussion? I was discussing history.

      I'm not sure of your point about birth defects. Are you suggesting that the genetic rationale is /invented/? That there IS no increased risk with close relatives? And (without presuming what my stance on this might be) where do the "rights" you refer to come from? You seem to be suggesting that people have some "right" other than what the law might say. What is the basis of this "right", according to you?

      In reply to another poster below, you cite statistics from Rhode Island, a state with "no laws against consensual adult incest", although it does have laws against close marriage. Do you also have statistics on the rate of the (extra-marital) "consensual adult incest"? Without that, your statistic is pretty-well meaningless.

    6. The religious discussion was dealing with what the Bible said. It is a religious position to say that there is a God who has said THIS thing, and then to discuss WHY God said THIS instead of THAT.

      Prohibitions on consanguinamory predate genetics and are instituted at a time when superstitions were used to explain birth defects rather than science. The genetic rationale is often used today in the form of "the children will be severely disabled." That shows a serious lack of understanding about the reality of matter.

      The rights come from being alive. If we don't have the right to love whom we want how we want per our mutual agreement, then what rights do we really have?

      Regarding Rhode Island, I don't need to cite statistics on the rate of consanguineous sex. The charge is that we no long ban consanguinamory, humanity will see an dramatic jump in birth defects. (People who make this argument seem to be saying the only thing preventing billions of people from having babies with their siblings is the law... perhaps these people want to tell us something about their own secret desires?) Consanguineous sex is not banned in Rhode Island, and Rhode Island is not experiencing a problem. That's my point. You'll likely find the same thing in Sweden, where half siblings can marry, and other countries with no laws against consanguineous sex.


    7. Part 1---
      Keith is right. Incestuous relationship laws were originally based superstitions, the westermark effect, and then later made into law after the english royalty. Here's the kicker, The reason why the royal family became messed up is because of the forced arranged marriages. I recently came across a comment discussing this by a person from the southern US on here, looked it up myself, and he was right. Incest is common not just in royalty, it's everywhere and always has been. Not everyone is forced to marry and bear children to those who have illnesses(which is what messed up the royal family so bad). And on top of that, just because there is an increased "risk" of a child born with birth defects due to incestuous child bearing, doesn't mean it will happen. You cannot have a child with defective genes if you and your partner do not have any defective genes. Common sense. Unless of course the genes in the sperm became damaged AFTER the sperm was created, or perhaps a defective cell creating the sperm. Could be from radiation, chemicals, cosmic rays, etc. But the body is good at detecting and removing such anyway, just business as usual. Anyway, anyone who has had highschool science can prove the genetic defect argument is BS and slightly true at the same time. Let me explain. Parent A and B have a baby. Parent A has 2 healthy genes, "RR." Parent B is a carrier, having a good one and bad one, "Rr." All possible child birth combinations are RR, RR, rR, and rR. In other words, 50% chance its a healthy baby and is NOT a carrier. 50% chance it is a healthy baby and IS a carrier-so there is no diseased children. Instead let's shake it up. Lets say Parents A and B are brother and sister, and are both carriers of a illness. Their genes are now Rr and Rr respectively. Possible combinations are now RR, rR, rR, and rr. Instead, we now have the possibility that 25% chance of a diseased child(rr), 50% chance its a healthy child(rR), but a carrier. And 25% chance IT IS A HEALTHY BABY WHO DOES NOT CARRY THE ILLNESS(RR). Strangely enough, as that southerner from the US said, it could actually "distill" good genes in a population. Sadly, the royal family forced themselves to interbreed with those who did have illnesses..

    8. Part 2----
      Keep in mind, the real rationale behind this is that we do not stop diseased or disabled people from marrying or having children, but those who are healthy and in an incestuous relationship which may bear healthy children 100% of the time-we put BOTH lovers in prison to the equivalent of a murderer, while rapists get out in a rather short duration in comparison, scotch free if you ignore the sex offender label and felony on their record. Thats the argument-that the incestuous incrimination laws are unjust, and that they as well as all consenting adults should be given the right to marriage under law.

      As far as planning ahead goes, yes you can get genetic screening for known causes to illnesses before having children. Not that even that truly matters, because the genes are scrambled into a random order before they are made into sperm. This is why a single couple can have so many different looking kids. So the chance that the defunct gene will pair with the other spouse's defunct gene is even rarer. To compound the chancelessness (lol) of this happening even further, children only share 50% DNA with either parent. Which means that at maximum, the amount of genes one sibling could share with the other is 50% (like identical twins) Since that's not as likely to happen from 2 sperm-b/c it usually only occurs if the egg splits after being fertilized, the average number of genes shared is between 0% and 50%, average of 25%. Though 2 siblings could share a mixed order of the same 50, in which case they may not look similar. So if the average is 25%, then the chance is now even less with a probability of 50% genes possibly shared, times 25% possibility of average genes shared (which would be around one-eighth chance) combined with the fact that the genes may be in a different order... so the chance is incredibly low. It may be hard to get around the math, and it is sort of hard to explain in words while still trying to convey meaning, but it is correct. So there's a little technical data for you to sift through.

    9. It is no more a "religious" position to say that there is a God than to say that there isn't a God, unless you are using a self-serving definition of "religion" that requires a believe in God. However, some religions (e.g. Buddhism, Secular Humanism (see the Humanist Manifesto I), Ralianism) don't believe in a God, so that's hardly a useful definition. Much of the Bible is HISTORY, so in dealing with what the Bible said, I was discussing HISTORY.

      That the original prohibition on incest was the result of superstition is part of the humanist religious position that rejects anything related to God as an explanation; it is not part of the Christian position, which is that the prohibition was the result of a decree of the omniscient Creator.

      Simply saying that there is a "serious lack of understanding about the reality of the matter" does not demonstrate that there is a serious lack. Anonymous has explained the genetics well enough (RR, etc.), but missed an implication. His first case that has a 50% chance of a child who is a healthy carrier and 50% chance of a healthy non-carrier is correct, as is his second case of 25% non-carrier, 50% healthy carrier, and 25% diseased, What he doesn't mention is that over time the second case will become more and more likely (assuming no "discrimination"), and especially so with close relatives (such as brother/sister or parent/child).

      So where is my "serious lack of understanding about the reality of the matter"? What do I misunderstand?

      How does being alive give us the specific rights that you claim? Your answer was an assertion, not an explanation.

      Anyone who says that if "we no long ban consanguinamory, humanity will see an dramatic jump in birth defects" is obviously making an implicit assumption that people will take advantage of that ban being lifted. Unless you demonstrate with statistics that people have taken such advantage to a statistically-significant extent, I reiterate my point that the statistic you provided is pretty-well meaningless.

      In reply to Anonymous who said that we can't have children with defective genes unless the parents have defective genes, there are two problems. First, without a knowledge of genetics greater than we currently have, combined with tests on all parents, whether or not we have problematic defective genes is unknown because, as he explained, the defect is not always expressed. Second, we ALL have many thousands of defective genes (and are gaining more every generation). It's just that most don't cause serious problems.

      I think the second part of Anonymous' second post confuses rather than clarifies matters. Although he's correct to say that the maximum number of genes shared with either parent is 50%, it doesn't follow that the same applies for the children. I think it would be correct to say that the amount any sibling shares with another sibling is 50% on AVERAGE, not maximum, and with identical twins it's 100%, not 50%. The ORDER of genes does not get changed. The reason that non-identical siblings look different is not because of the order of the genes, but because of which particular genes they get from each parent; they each get a different combination. But the genes are still in the same order, so a defective gene X from each parent WILL pair up and cause whatever problem that defect causes.

    10. Saying one knows for sure what God said and WHY God said is certainly a religious discussion, and this blog is mostly about laws in non-theocratic countries.

      I come across ignorance about genetics all of the time, so yes, there is a serious lack of understanding. When someone says the laws exist (where they do) because of genetic concerns, that is demonstrably false by considering other laws or the lack of laws.

      If you don't believe in human rights or the general principle of equality under the law, I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you. Most reasonable people these days do believe in this concepts and want them as part of governance.

      Again, sex & marriage are not synonymous with having biological children together, and we do not deprive people with known, obvious, serious genetic diseases their reproductive rights.

      While someone may have a religious restriction FOR THEMSELVES, there remains no good reason to deny consenting adults their freedom of association and right to marry.

    11. I didn't say that it wasn't "religious". I said it depends on how you define "religious", and that an atheistic view can be just as religious as a Christian one. Labelling it a "religious" discussion implies that it's not connected to the real world, yet WHAT God said is surely a question of fact—did He, or did He not, say it? It would be like not discussing whether or not Britain's Prime Minister Chamberlain declared war on Germany in 1939 because that would be a "political discussion".

      And why is discussing WHY someone said something a "religious" discussion? Just because God is involved? So what?

      This blog has a lot of mentions (according to the "Labels" column at right) of U.S. states, and the U.S. (like some of the other countries mentioned)—and its laws—has a historical basis in Christianity.

      Okay, so you come across a lot of ignorance of genetics. Yet you've pointed out none in my understanding, even though you raised it in response to one of my posts. I can only assume that you've seen no such ignorance in my comments.

      Your comment about why the laws exist gives no specifics; it appears to be a throw-away line.

      I didn't say that I didn't believe in human rights. In fact I implied that they DO exist, because I asked you where you thought the rights came from. But you've dodged answering that question twice now.

      It is your religious view that religion is a personal thing. It is not mine. The Christian view is that God's standards are for everyone. So in telling me that "someone may have a religious restriction FOR THEMSELVES", it seems that you are trying to impose your religious view (that religious views are merely personal) on me.

      After all, the reason that governments create laws has often been to impose particular "religious" views (such as 'you shall not murder') on society, for it's good governance. After all, what is wrong with killing another person (we kill other animals, after all)? Because it's wrong? But what makes it wrong? Because it hurts someone? But what's wrong with hurting someone? Because the majority think it's wrong? No, it can't be that else your position regarding marriage doesn't have a leg to stand on. Because...?

      Don't get me wrong. I DO believe that it's wrong to murder someone. Because God never gave us the right to murder other people (distinct from animals). But if you reject this "religious" reason (handy label that, to avoid addressing the question), what reason remains? Your opinion? Majority opinion? (No, we've already discounted that one.) Some vague, "concept" that "most reasonable people" believe, but which you seem to have trouble elucidating (and which, if you investigate, you'll usually find traces back historically to a Christian, or perhaps other religious, worldview)?

    12. Someone was noting what they read in the Bible. You responded that they were not reading it right, or without the right understanding. That is a religious discussion.

      The US is not a theocracy. It does not have an official religion. Sectarian beliefs are not how we adopt our laws. You will not find a single mention of God, Jesus, Christianity, or the Bible in our Constitution, which is considered our highest law courts use to rule.

      I am not ignorant of genetics. I have read much on genetics especially as it related to children born of consanguineous parents. I also know people born to consanguineous parents, and I have paid attention to news accounts of such births. All of these things demonstrate that most children born to consanguineous parents are healthy. Citing genetic concerns as a reason to deny this sexual and marital right is a failing argument, as I have demonstrated repeatedly.

      There have been many laws trying to restrict sexual rights and marital rights. Prohibitions on consanguinamory did arise before we had any understanding of genetics. That is a fact demonstrated in history.

      It doesn't matter where I think human rights come from. We agree human rights exist. You want to deny those rights to some people, but have not provided a good reason why.

      >>It is your religious view that religion is a personal thing. It is not mine.<<

      OK, well, in the US, where I live, we have the freedom of religion and a well established separation of church and state. This blog is largely about law. I know Christians who agree with me and disagree with you. So which Christian view should be imposed by force on everyone else, regardless of THEIR religion?

      I am not imposing MY belief on anyone. I am citing how it works in a country with equal rights for all and freedom of religion. Your religion can restrict YOUR behavior, under our laws, it can;t restrict someone else's.

      Murder is a violation of someone else's right. Denying someone their mutual sexuality is denying someone else's rights.

      I hope you never lose your religion, because you seem to be implying that without it, you'd have nothing holding you back from murdering. Meanwhile, people of varying religions or no religion at all, through democracy, can generally agree on equal rights for all adults.

    13. Sorry Rayment, but the anonymous poster with the 2 part comment is correct. The MAXIMUM amount of possible shared genes is half or 50%, min being 0%. 2 siblings from the same parents could carry 0% common genes. Why? If both parents have 2 DNA strands, then theoretically, one child could get the first strand from each parent, the second child getting the second strand from each parent. So the anonymous poster's argument holds. So you are wrong there. You also state that the bad gene would become more common after incestuous relations. That's possible, but no more or less than the parents were in the first place. And as the poster stated, the child could even be cured of the defective gene by inheriting 2 good copies. And YES! 2 halves are passed to the new child, and they DO RANDOMLY MIX the gene combinations for the new child. So the percentage of a bad gene combo being passed is incredibly closer to zero. Here's a link "" As in the page it states " But which half? This is where nature does the especially amazing part. When forming sperm cells, the father's body randomly chooses genes from the two halves of the father's chromosomes. This means that every sperm cell contains a random mix of the father's parents' genes." So there you go. And no parents cannot pass on a defective gene they don't have. And yeah we all have 1000's of defective genes and it does get worse throughout one's life as age increases. But that it gets worse after every generation is BS. If that was true we'd all be crippled and suffering from who knows what. Our bodies do on the up side of 75 quintillion repair operations a day. Yea, it repairs its own DNA if possible.. so as you said, "It's just that most (genes) don't cause serious problems." is true, but looking at the general pop., untrue. And identical twins are identical because the cell divides and birth 2 children from the same cell, not 2 cells and 2 sperm with the same dna (possible, but seriously, a <1% chance.) Plus, how in the world is it going to become a problem from "repeat cases" when incest is so rare compared to the general pop anyway? And the "right" is that people are born with the innate ability to love, and express that love. When apparently, the current laws don't give that across the board, instead sentence people to jail for falling in love. So hopefully I've answered you in regards to where you have "serious lack of understanding about the reality of the matter." :)

    14. Crap, sorry missed a part I think(sleepy..) In regards to shared DNA percentages, yes in the case of identical twins, the dna % can be 100% with a minimum of 100% also. But that is because the egg cell divides AFTER being fertilized by sperm, in which case it's a rare situation-because it's basically a copy of the child. However, if a mother's egg divides into 2 cells, then are both fertilized, the maximum shared can be as high as 75%, but a minimum of 50%. Otherwise it's a 50% max 0% min for siblings. I can possibly believe that under the strangest occurrence, that a mother's egg could divide before fertilization, and somehow under the sun that 2 sperm with the EXACT same DNA fertilize them both causing 100% max, 100% min. But that is reeeeally pushing it to the extreme. So no, we are not ignorant of genetics. And yes, incest laws come from the english royalty and from superstitions, and the illnesses came from forced marriages with those same people. I think it was like over the equivalent of 16 generations? combined with another family with like 18 generations? idk. But the point is that we don't stop anyone else based on genetics from marrying or making love--and to think of putting someone in jail because of their love is insane. And yes rayment, nearly ALL state laws are just reiterations of previous states' laws regarding incest. It's true, look it up for yourself. And yes, the genetic argument is one of things that has been retold so much it is accepted by most as "fact" even though there is not really a basis for it. After all, cells do repair their own dna. People just believe what doctors tell them without question, and the same goes for their doctrines as well. And yes, you can be prescreened for genetic issues before trying to birth a child. And just because a 100% certain possibility of passing on a defective gene is possible, it still doesn't mean the child will even have an illness. They may not even get the gene. May not even be a carrier. Gene may be mixed so that it's not a concern. The cell may even repair it. So YES! The genetic argument was rather.."invented." And highly reinforced by either A. gut reaction or B. society's views that have been ingrained since birth. As far as the religious aspect of the debate---I think i'll sit this one out. ;)

  7. Statistics please....

    "Those states do not report a problem with an usually high number of birth defects"

    1. My statement was mistyped. It should have been "Those states do not report a problem with an unusually high number of birth defects." The state with the most progressive laws in this regard is Rhode Island.

      Let's use the example of Down Syndrome according to
      The rate in Rhode Island is 13.5 per 10,000. According to
      the national rate is 14.5 per 10,000.
      In other words, the rate of Down Syndrome in Rhode Island, which has no laws against consensual adult incest, is less than the national average.

  8. I have a daughter that is healthy and has no problems what so ever! My father and I had a baby girl that's now 2 and perfict in every way, smart as hell, no deformities, and she is just plain old healthy! Period! So if your going to argue with keith make sure you get the facts strait.

    1. Good for you! And I agree, most people just regurgitate what others tell them rather than figuring out the truth, or being blatantly ignorant after being shown facts. While others just flat out say "that's just wrong! eww! sick!" lol


To prevent spam, comments will have to be approved, so your comment may not appear for several hours. Feedback is welcome, including disagreement. I only delete/reject/mark as spam: spam, vulgar or hateful attacks, repeated spouting of bigotry from the same person that does not add to the discussion, and the like. I will not reject comments based on disagreement, but if you don't think consenting adults should be free to love each other, then I do not consent to have you repeatedly spout hate on my blog without adding anything to the discourse.

If you want to write to me privately, then either contact me on Facebook, email me at fullmarriageequality at yahoo dot com, or tell me in your comment that you do NOT want it published. Otherwise, anything you write here is fair game to be used in a subsequent entry. If you want to be anonymous, that is fine.