Marriage Equality

[frickenel]

As much as i feel sorry for a person who identifies as one gender while trapped in the body of another gender, i have to admit having seen a fat tattoo'd Richmond supporter with barely 3 teeth in his head, i wondered how bad it was for him being a Richmond supporter trapped in a Colingwood supporter's body.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Exactly.

I don't think that anyone would be too concerned about cousins anyway. Siblings and parents are another matter.

Sure. It's just very hard to get good stats as biases are hard to weed out. The mortality numbers could be inflated by abortion etc. as the surveys don't always establish the cause of death. And they don't weed out disabilities that were extant before the relationship that may even explain why it occured in the first place. It seems probable that the risks to offspring are far lower than is generally thought.

On the Royal Disease, it is usually stated as though inbreeding 'caused' genetic mutations due to the closeness of the dna. But it wasn't that. It was simply the misfortune of a random fault in gene replication in Queen Victoria's DNA (with no suggestion that inbreeding caused it) that was passed down to her kids. By dint of being a powerful aristocratic/political family that DNA was concentrated in the powerful families of Europe because rich powerful people's kids tend to marry each other to concentrate power and control. Lack of diversity, not genetic mutation because of familial hanky-panky. I know you get this, just making super clear.

 

[AngryAnt]

Inbreeding results in enhanced positive characteristics as well as negative ones. But it also greatly increases the risk of the expression of deleterious recessive genes which can result in deformities and abnormalities.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Inbreeding results in enhanced positive characteristics as well as negative ones. But it also greatly increases the risk of the expression of deleterious recessive genes which can result in deformities and abnormalities.

No doubt, it's just how 'greatly' is hard to nail down. The risk is almost certainly lower than the current accepted wisdom would suggest.

 

[Coburgtiger]

No doubt, it's just how 'greatly' is hard to nail down. The risk is almost certainly lower than the current accepted wisdom would suggest.

Depends on the family. It doesn't create mutations, it just reduces the redundancy that having two copies of each gene provides. It's only a problem if the family already has mutations present at certain gene loci.

It's possible for inbreeding to cause no problems at all.

The real question is wtf has this got to do with marriage equality. Far to easy to fall down the slippery slope into a pit of red herrings.

 

[Azza]

The real question is wtf has this got to do with marriage equality. Far to easy to fall down the slippery slope into a pit of red herrings.

Yep.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

The real question is wtf has this got to do with marriage equality. Far to easy to fall down the slippery slope into a pit of red herrings.

Ask Giardiasis. He's the one who brought up incest and doormat didling.

 

[tigertim]

So the question in the form is: Should the law be changed to allow same sex couples to marry? Yes or No.


So the conspiracy theorists can relax now.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Received an email from my employer last week spruiking the 'yes' case. Bit my lip, but it's overstepping the mark.

Once again, a socialist cause is terribly well co-ordinated. I think us so-called 'conservatives' are condemned to suffer until such time as we become as organised.

 

[AngryAnt]

Socialist? Plenty of conservatives support marriage equality.

 

[jb03]

Socialist? Plenty of conservatives support marriage equality.

True. I actually reckon Lee does too but it perhaps goes against his other ideals so causes some confliction.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Socialist? Plenty of conservatives support marriage equality.

There's some crossover but I think you'll find that it's split along party lines, generally speaking. Happy to stand corrected.

It's healthy that it's been put to a public vote. I'll accept the majority view.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

There's some crossover but I think you'll find that it's split along party lines, generally speaking. Happy to stand corrected.

It's healthy that it's been put to a public vote. I'll accept the majority view.

It hasn't. The BoS is conducting a survey.

 

[Ian4]

So the question in the form is: Should the law be changed to allow same sex couples to marry? Yes or No.

So the conspiracy theorists can relax now.

I still think the term "marriage equality" should have been used. Coz at the end of the day, this issue is about equal rights. The term "same sex couples" is still a term that can play on people's prejudices.

Once again, a socialist cause is terribly well co-ordinated.

how the hell is this a socialist cause?

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

It hasn't. The BoS is conducting a survey.

True, but if the outcome is, say, 55% either way, the government isn't going to act contrary to the vote.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

how the hell is this a socialist cause?

Socialist publication: We can ‘change the world’ through abortion and gay ‘marriage’

Vote ‘Yes’, but the fight doesn’t end with marriage equality

 

[Giardiasis]

I still think the term "marriage equality" should have been used. Coz at the end of the day, this issue is about equal rights. The term "same sex couples" is still a term that can play on people's prejudices.

Marriage equality obfuscates what is in dispute, which is actually same sex marriage. Marriage equality would mean marriage is open to all relationships, and it wouldn't discriminate against any of them.

 

[poppa x]

True, but if the outcome is, say, 55% either way, the government isn't going to act contrary to the vote.

Here's what I think will happen.
About 70% of the public will vote.
About 55% will vote in favour.
You would assume this means it sails through parliament.
But
There will people like Abetz and Abbott who will argue only 38.5% voted in favour (55% of 70%).

Count on it.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Here's what I think will happen.
About 70% of the public will vote.
About 55% will vote in favour.
You would assume this means it sails through parliament.
But
There will people like Abetz and Abbott who will argue only 38.5% voted in favour (55% of 70%).

Count on it.

Maybe, but I think they are genuinely attempting to obtain a definitive majority view in a transparent way. If they then played statistical games it would work strongly against them IMO.

 

[AngryAnt]

There's some crossover but I think you'll find that it's split along party lines, generally speaking. Happy to stand corrected.

It's healthy that it's been put to a public vote. I'll accept the majority view.

No worries Lee.