tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9490328.post111092194044966611..comments2023-08-26T10:41:26.031-05:00Comments on Egg and Sperm: California decisionJohn Howardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15367755435877853172noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9490328.post-1111001987371839902005-03-16T14:39:00.000-05:002005-03-16T14:39:00.000-05:00That would be true, wouldn't it? But rather than ...That would be true, wouldn't it? But rather than noting the absurdity that we are witnessing, and finding ever more absurd things ever more amusing, we have to get serious. We should point out how it CAN'T be legal, how it would be unethical to allow it.John Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15367755435877853172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9490328.post-1110940667413168152005-03-15T21:37:00.000-05:002005-03-15T21:37:00.000-05:00Bingo. Laws banning consangineuous relationships ...Bingo. Laws banning consangineuous relationships MUST be struck down, if gay-marriage is allowed, because there can be "no rational basis" for prohibiting family members from having sexual relations -- if they are of the same sex. Such laws ONLY have meaning, in procreative unions.<BR/><BR/>Which leave us with what? That incest is only banned for heterosexuals, and allowed for gays? How twisted a result of "orientation discrimination" would THAT be?Martyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14777483678013218629noreply@blogger.com