PA Gov likens Marriage Equality to Siblings getting married.

[The Vortex Empire]

If we don't ban people who actually have genetic disorders that will be passed on to their children from reproducing, I don't see how you can ban relative-marriage based on the mere possibility of problems.

[Civil War Man]

Determining marriage policy by the genetic makeup of their potential children is pretty high up there on the eugenics tree. I mean sure it's not as bad as forced sterilisation or anything, but that's a pretty low bar to cross.

Of course, that would mean that supporting interracial marriage because it increases genetic diversity, resulting in a healthier population in the long run, is also eugenics.

The only problem is that eugenics is an incredibly loaded word given its history.

[Broomstick]

In my opinion there is a difference between forbidding potentially problematic reproduction and simply not encouraging it.

It's not unknown for people with genetic issues to voluntarily forgo reproduction. It's not unknown for parents to take steps to maximize the genetic fitness of their offspring, even if they don't refer to it in such formal terms. As long as it's truly voluntary I don't have a problem with that.

[Forgothrax]

Gene testing should, in my opinion, be standardized and strongly encouraged if not required before reproduction to screen for diseases like Huntington's and certain other genetic disorders, in the interest of making informed decisions. In some cases, like Huntington's, it's possible to prevent the disease, or at least be prepared to treat it early.

[Scorpion]

The original comparison - that homosexuals trying to get married are like children trying to get married - is much more insulting. Children can't get married because they aren't considered rational enough to consent.

You're missing the point of the original comparison. As the text says:

Corbett's attorneys included a reference to children in a legal brief in August involving same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses. In the court filing opposing allowing same-sex couples to intervene in the state's lawsuit to bar a suburban Philadelphia county from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the lawyers made an analogy to a pair of 12-year-olds, saying if the children were issued a marriage license and tried to defend it in court, they wouldn't be taken seriously because the license was never valid.

So the issue in this comparison was not one of consent but one of legality: since gay mariage isn't legal in PA, trying to defend a gay marriage license in court would be like defending the marriage license of two children: they both have no validity under the current law. So, no matter how stupid Corbett's declarations are, this argument, from a purely legal point of view, is valid.

[Kitsune]

So the issue in this comparison was not one of consent but one of legality: since gay mariage isn't legal in PA, trying to defend a gay marriage license in court would be like defending the marriage license of two children: they both have no validity under the current law. So, no matter how stupid Corbett's declarations are, this argument, from a purely legal point of view, is valid.

It depends. . . .If there is part of the constitutional which argues for equal treatment under the law (strong) or any laws that argue for equal treatment under the law (weaker), it can be argued that the law is invalid. Can also be argued "Full faith and credit" that because other states allow gay marriage that Pennsylvania has to as well.

It should be noted that the attorney general does not want to defend the law but the governor does.