Traditional marriage arguments against gay marriage were based on scientific evidence that stable societies are formed from traditional marriage as well as childhood success later in life.
Arguments supporting gay marriage used the post-civil war amendments (meant to protect former slaves) as a trojan horse to upturning the States. States have always defined marriage, indeed the overturning of DOMA was based on the fact that marriage is a State right. Now there is chaos.
Indeed this poor decision by SCOTUS bases on "love" and "discrimination" could be made for all types of potential unions.
I think people get offended because they think you're comparing homosexuality to incest here, but that's not the case. Obviously, no relationship should be allowed that is harmful to a child, which used to be an argument against gay adoption and gay marriage, but it's proven to be untrue. I think some people just automatically object whenever a traditional institution like marriage is questioned or challenged.
Whatever about poly marriage, people who support same-sex marriage and don't believe that the state should have the authority to determine who is allowed to breed, and who can procreate with whom, should certainly support the marriage of close relatives (brother/sister, brother/brother, parent/child) so long as they are both consenting adults obviously.
Firstly, what reason would be offered for forbidding the marriage of two brothers, but allowing the marriage of two unrelated men?
Secondly, in the case of brother/sister marriages, the strongest argument for forbidding them that I have heard is that there is an increased likelihood of children born to parents in such a marriage being born with genetic defects (inbreeding depression).
Addressing this argument, two unrelated adults who have a child who is born with a autosomal recessive genetic disorder such as sickle cell anemia are not prevented from marrying or from having more children despite the fact that there is a 25% chance of any future child being born with the same disorder. If preventing the possibility of birth of children with a greater chance of suffering from genetic disorders is the basis for forbidding brother/sister marriages, then unrelated people as described above should also be prevented from marrying. Furthermore, everyone with autosomal dominant genetic disorders should also be prevented from marrying as there is a 50% chance of any of the offspring suffering from the same disorder.
Addressing the argument posed by SloppyJoe6412 that parent/child marriages should be forbidden as there is almost always an asymmetrical relationship between parents and their children. Firstly, so long as the child is an adult, and I am only arguing in favour of incestuous marriage involving consenting adults, this argument is invalid. Doctor/patient relationships are "asymmetrical", so too are lecturer/student, and especially boss/worker relationships, and often to a much greater degree than the relationship between ADULT children and their parents. If we are to forbid marriages of parents and their children because their relationship is asymmetrical then surely people involved in the above asymmetrical relationships should also be legally prevented from marrying.
In conclusion, I believe that anyone who supports gay marriage but does not support incestuous marriage must also support the state deciding who is allowed to breed and who is not, and also who is allowed to breed with whom.
The definition of marriage is changing and evolving as is the moral compass of the world. As little as 25 years ago being gay was thought to be wrong and a mental illness that could be corrected. Now gay marriage is legal in many states and around the world as well.
Why then cannot sister wifes/brother husband or any other combination of spouses exist? The human heart is so capable of loving more than one thing/person at a time and when people lay down their jealousies and insecurities and open their hearts up to love they find their peace and are more able to cope with what this world throws at them.
We are talking about adults, consenting ones at that. If 2 men or 2 women are allowed to get married why then shouldn't any type of family be able to be married and enjoy the benefits that come with that like insurance etc...
There are a few different types of marriage you considered and no they should not be legal. The issue with multiple spouses is that you are not being loyal to any one spouse and not giving your devotion to them. This causes many issues. Incest is illegal because it is dangerous for offspring. Gay marriage poses no threat and still has two people who want to devote their lives to one another.
It's completely stupid and misguided to equate gay marriage to polyamory or incest. Gay marriage is nothing like those other two issues. Only a bigot would equate those three things, and gay people deserve every right that straight people have in the United States. Nobody would deny that fact if they're using logic.
Gay marriage is nothing like those things listed and should not even be brought up in the same category. Gay marriage is actually a natural thing, just because people do not like seeing two men together or two women together does not make it unnatural. No one gets harmed from them being together.
No, gay marriage being okay does not indicate that other types of marriage such as polyamorous marriage or incestual marriage should also be legal. In both polyamorous and incestual relationships, there is generally an unfair distribution of power that places someone in to a weakened and abused position. In gay relationships, partners are usually equal and loving.
I think gay marriage, incest, poly, etc. are a COMPLETELY different types of situations. While I do think gay marriage is okay and should be legal, I do not think anyone in their right mind would give the okay for someone to commit incest with another respected member of their family.
They're completely different things. Gay marriage is just sexual orientation based. Poly and incest are entirely different subjects. (I won't get into my opinion on them.) They should be treated as such, and not be categorized into homosexual marriage. We have to take into consider if it harms anyone, physically or mentally, etc, etc.
How much farther will this go? Gay marriage should never have even been made legal. Now people are redefining marriage all over the place like its some unimportant term to be bandied around and twisted to their heart's content. Incest is wrong. Besides, who the f**k would want to marry and sleep with their sibling anyway? What the hell kind of upbringing did you all have? Polygamy? Now that's like giving a man his very own whorehouse, excuse the expression. And what kind of person has a such a minuscule understanding of love that they can say that they fell in love with so many people they want to marry them all? That can be affection, or lust, but a true romantic love exists between one man and one woman.
From all I've seen in 17 years of living on this wretched world, I've learned a few truths, and yes truth does exist: nearly no one understands love anymore, people are willing to break healthy traditions to ruin society further, no one listens to the stories that predicted times would be like this because people are too consumed with their own little lives to heed the warnings.
Enough is enough. They said it then, and I'll keep saying it as people descend further into complacency and political correctness while losing their humanity and becoming a bunch of blathering, circular-argument idiots. All that is needed for them to triumph is that those who know the truth stand by and do nothing. Well I won't. I've had enough of standing by and watching our world go to shit.
Gay marriage is about sexual orientation alone. The rights of each member are intended to be similar to those of a heterosexual couple, where neither has an advantage over the other. From an evolutionary point of view, gay marriage has no impact on society: offspring must be obtained with external help (adoption, surrogate mother, etc.) so the only question is whether the members of the couple are good parents, which is not a gender issue at all.
However, polygamy is a different matter. It clearly places one of the members (for practical purposes the man, although it's theoretically possible to have a woman with a male harem) in a position of domination. The multiple wives are essentially "sub wives". The only case in which the polygamy argument could hold some water would be one of dire need, such as huge imbalance between male and female populations (in 1870 the war-decimated male population of Paraguay was in a 1:10 ratio to females). But as long as male and female populations are even, polygamy is morally unacceptable.
Incest, besides the obvious legality issues, comes in two types: one involves an adult (parent) and a child. Those who find this acceptable are jailed as pedophiles, and rightly so. The relationship is so obviously asymmetrical, pretty much one of slavery, few sane people could challenge it. Then the other type involves siblings, and I admit this one is more gray than black & white. As far as it's between consenting adults, the only obvious negative side is degeneration due to inbreeding, which is a long term risk and only significant if the practice were to become the norm for marriage. So I could accept this to be placed in the "maybe" column, as long as it's clear that adult - child couples are completely out of the question.
In summary, any form of marriage where the two members are in a position of equality is fine with me. Gay marriage passes the test. Polygamy and adult-child incest clearly don't.