You're almost too easy. Your link is sufficient.

Post #373,115 by mmoffitt 3/29/13 1:01:53 PM Reply	You're almost too easy. Your link is sufficient. Your link acknowledges the Rubella test - which is what my wife had to have and what I alluded to earlier. Why test for German measles in an adult who has clearly survived the disease? Because it is very dangerous for - wait for it - fetuses! I admit your selected quote's author argues against it, but even he concedes that the rationale for ever having a Rubella test as a part of a marriage license application only makes sense if by applying for a marriage license, you are implicitly stating you are going to procreate. Which was my point in its entirety. So, thank you. This is from your link: Although rubella is typically a minor condition in adults, it is serious disease for a developing fetus, especially during the first trimester. It is associated with a high rate of birth defects. Identifying women who are not immune (from previous infection or vaccination) can determine who needs vaccination before pregnancy, a practice that could reduce the chances that a fetus will be affected. If a woman is not immune and has not been vaccinated prior to pregnancy, she will be instructed to avoid anyone who might have the disease. Q-E-fricking-D. :0)
Post #373,126 by drook 3/29/13 2:35:19 PM Reply	Your "tradition" goes back ... three generations? Also in that link, they didn't start the testing until the 30s, and it was started primarily because of syphilis. It's a tradition that doesn't go back all that far, and that was only secondarily about children. Note that the assumption they were making wasn't that you were getting married to have children, you were getting married to have sex. -- Drew
Post #373,129 by mmoffitt 3/29/13 3:16:19 PM Reply	Ya lost me. Note that the assumption they were making wasn't that you were getting married to have children, you were getting married to have sex. You don't care about Rubella results if you're only going to have sex. You care about Rubella results only if there's going to be a fetus. Sherif Girgis makes a pretty good case here in defense of traditional marriage: http://www.c-spanvid.../program/310722-1
Post #373,134 by drook 3/29/13 4:20:54 PM Reply	Repeat after me: syphilis It's why they started doing it. If you're going to make some point about the blood test "proving" what the "intent" of marriage "traditionally" is, you have to be talking about the reason they started doing it. Not the reasons they added on after. -- Drew
Post #373,137 by boxley 3/29/13 4:44:13 PM Reply	Marriage is because syphillis? kewl :-) Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
Post #373,160 by mmoffitt 3/30/13 10:52:14 AM Reply	Okay. They started Rubella testing because there was the presumption that marriage => children. Better?
Post #373,162 by crazy 3/30/13 11:04:41 AM Reply	Another slice off the shifting platform Don't want to be seen (don't care if you are) as a bigot (no matter how many passes you get from box when you doth protest so loudly) so you moved to the protect the fragile people who's lives will be destroyed when they see a gay couple kissing (ooo, how'd that statement FEEL. Gut level disgust. 2 gay GUYS now, not hot chicks). See how I don't need to bother to respond when you misquote other people to support your silliness? They show up and point out your bullshit sooner or later. kiss kiss.
Post #373,163 by drook 3/30/13 11:08:55 AM Reply	Marriage leads to children != marriage is for children -- Drew
Post #373,164 by crazy 3/30/13 11:12:54 AM Reply	Yup Too bad some people don't understand cause and effect, at least as represented by stats.

Welcome to IWETHEY!