Have a problem? Prove that incest is harmful to children and then make it illegal for children to be born out of incestuous relationships.

And as for polygamy, pass laws that make sure that children of polygamist relationships have equal support from both parents.

“No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Since marriage grants legal rights to couples, denying marriage to gay couples denies those couples equal protection under the law. A state could do away with marriage entirely–as in, not view a couple any differently than any other two people (including for taxes, child adoption, etc). However, if marriage exists for some, it must exist for all.

On a different note, I assume that since the author of this article thinks that the federal government shouldn’t play any role in marriage, he would support the repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act?

Are you saying a Polgamyst has a choice in loving multiple people? Or that someone who happens to love another family member (regardless of how sick it sounds) has a choice? What if that Polgamyst was gay? Or if the incestual relationship was gay? Then do they have a choice?

I never said being gay was a choice! I agree, it is not, and am okay with same sex marriages.

Brian, you say these all hurt someone else… how? Pedophelia is wrong and should remain illegal — I have never used this in any of my arguments by the way!

As I was stating before, if an incestual couple does not or cannot procreate, does it make it okay? The same goes for polgamy … how does it hurt someone else if all parties are consenting AND OF LEGAL AGE?????

Again, not advocating anything, just posing the questions.

Incest, pedophilia, and to some extent polygamist marriages, all involve elements of harm among parties. A marriage between two consenting adults of age, regardless of gender, does not harm the parties involved. It is therefore irrational to compare same-gender marriage to any of these other harmful arrangements, or worse, using these arrangements as a basis of comparison to bar same-gender couples from entering into civil contract with one another.

I agree with your post … I like playing devil’s advocate, because, as you state above, its all based on how you want to interpret the rules of the game.

As our country continues to evolve and we become more diverse, more and more ideas will be accepted into our culture … just as we’ve granted human rights to all American’s based on thier ethnicity and skin color, we’ll move toward that for classifications that become more prevelant (sexuality).

Its a very interesting debate and I always like to play devil’s advocate when people start to speak with emotion and not use logical arguments – I believe this will never fully satisfy EVERYONE, and will always be a hot topic … just like abortion!

Take Care,

What flows from that point, if you accept that marriage is a right, is “who should be allowed to exercise that right”. We restrict rights and freedoms in many ways e.g. an age of consent in order to exercise the “right” of marriage, or to enter into a legally binding contract, or the fact that currently in many states the restriction is, that the right to marry is restricted to two consenting non-related adults of the opposite sex.

The logical flow of the argument then hits choppier waters, as peoples opinions as to what those proper restrictions should be differ, based upon your point of view. Some people believe the right to marry should be reserved for people of the opposite sex, some believe that restriction denies a significant number of people who identify as homosexual, a basic human right which is granted to heterosexuals, with no genuine public interest or moral justification for doing so.

This is why it is in the interests of many opponents of same sex marriage to insist that homosexuality is a choice, and organisations such as Exodus exist, to “demonstrate” that people can change from homosexual to heterosexual. If its a “lifestyle” choice and not a fundemnetal part of your makeup as a human being, it is easier to deny or restrict the right…because if you want the right to marry, you have got it…just choose not to be homosexual and marry a person of the opposite sex.

For the slightly more enlightened, who understand even a small amount about human sexuality, they believe a significant minority are being denied the same rights as others, based upon part of their being that they can not change. Even if the conservative estimates are correct, that the homosexual population is fairly static at approx 2%, that is still approx 134 million human beings worldwide who are discriminated against in many countries, and not given the equal playing field afforded to their heterosexual brothers and sisters.

Something worth thinking about over a beer !

You’re the first to actually make a somewhat valid argument to me on that point, however, I could also say we all have the exact same right to marry the opposite sex … no longer sex discrimination.

Also to that same point – then when are women going to fight for it to be legal for them to walk in public without shirts on? Is that sex discrimination?

To say my ‘slippery slope’ argument does not fly when it comes to Polgamy and to homosexual incestual relationships is a very poor argument. As our culture changes and things become acceptable that were not previously, topics like this will come up. If you allow people to commit to someone they love, why not these types of loving relationships? Are we now going to discrimininate and determine who can love who?

I don’t care if they allow same-sex marriages, I’m just playing devil’s advocate. My point being, you really need to understand what you’re getting yourself into with this argument.

And yet the United States Supreme Court decided in a unanimous decision in Loving v. Virginia (1967) that marriage IS a right protected by the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment

The court even stated in the joint opinion: “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man’”.