The gay marriage trend is based on the idea that any relationship between adults that is non harmful and consensual is acceptable. This in turn would open doors to many other similar situations that follow the same rule. Essentially we are advocating individual preferences over societies accepted norms and therefore we must tolerate and acknowledge all persons perception of marriage, regardless of our own personal indifference.
If the legal basis of tolerance here is that, like religion, it is a protected choice, then I think we will be OK. Other clearly damaging forms of sexuality will remain choices that can be blocked. If its treated like an immutable quality however? We are in trouble. For if sexuality is just born, than there is no deviant form of sexuality and pedophilia is just ... A born problem. Denying it is the crime rather than the pediophiliac behavior. The legal justification is the key here.
Society is always changing through the beauty of evolution. When one person gets equality, then more people want equality. Nobody wants to be ostracized! Slowly American society is becoming tolerant. First it was English white men. Then it was western European men who were considered equal to each other. Then other races where slowly added into equality. Then blacks were considered equal and slavery was abolished. Then women were considered equal. Then interracial couples were then considered equal. Now gays are considered and next will be polygamous & incestuous marriages and that's how it should be. It is the evolution of a free society. People from centuries ago, would look at our society and throw up because interracial marriages!? What blaspheme! Blacks aren't slaves!? THAT'S INSANE! I can understand the ignorance of why people against polygamy & incestuous relationships and that's just because how they were raised to be. Society will change, just as it has been and that is a good thing. Nobody wants to be ostracized or made unequal. Nobody is hurting each other and it is not rape, then it is not your concern. What you consider to be putrid and disgusting, the future generations won't. It's the same way past generations would see interracial marriages and people not shackled and being slaves, as being downright putrid and disgusting.
Seriously the arguments get dumber and dumber. Additionally and this is important. Why is polygamy bad? Why is incest bad? These are societal norms that have been decided on and in most cases they have no rational reason to be frowned upon. For example incestuous relationships are frowned upon as children born from these relationships can have serious problems. But if there are no children what's the problem?
Gay marriage is more like straight marriage than anything. Two consenting adults = two consenting adults. No matter the genders.
The equation doesn't work with polygamy, for example. Two consenting adults =/= five consenting adults. The equation doesn't work with pedophile relationships... A child and an adult =/= two consenting adults.
The incest matter? Well, that's an issue with a risk to other people. It affects the genetics of offspring of the couples in question. Does gay marriage affect other people? No. Studies show that gay couples may even be better parents sometimes because their children were 100% wanted. No such thing as an unwanted pregnancy for gay couples - I mean, that one should be clear ;)
Also, the argument that kids with two moms or two dads will be messed up is invalid. Everyone has two grandmothers. Two grandfathers. Maybe a lot of aunts or uncles. Maybe they're the only boy out of five sisters! A gay couple is not going to influence their children to be "too" masculine or "too" feminine. Gender is genetic as much as it is environmental! Also, are people with single mothers or single fathers messed up? Some, maybe. But a child can thrive on just a mother's love or just a father's love. They can even thrive on two mothers' love just as they could having two aunts who love them :)
Does being gay influence others to be gay? In recent studies, researchers are saying that, in males, homosexuality is strongly linked with *in-the-womb* environmental factors. Chemicals the mother secretes when she's pregnant. And then there's genetic research of course. And other studies say that most children with gay parents aren't gay themselves. If you don't believe me, look it up. It's all online in scientific journals.
That is a rather dangerous slippery slope used by people who wish to restrict traditional marriage between a man and a woman. What I believe is fine is that consenting, non-family-related partners should be allowed to be married or sexually involved, regardless of the parties' genders.
As long as they are legally consenting adults and it's not within the family with their own genetics, then I really have no right to intrude in the privacy of others.
I would like to point out that marrying your cousin is legal in twenty states, bestiality is legal in eighteen states/territories, and while polygamy is not legal in the United States, you can not assume that no one practices it in secret or even right out in public but lie about the relationships. I would also like to point out that a lot of the states that ban same sex marriage such as Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Kentucky, and Florida allow you to marry your cousin, allow you have sex with an animal, or both and as I said before you can not safely assume people don't practice polygamy already. So it is outrageous to assume allowing homosexual marriage would lead to issues that already exist and are legal.
Gay marriage is a romantic relationship between two of the same gender. Polygamy is having more than 1 spouse. Incest is a romantic relationship between your family. These are all VERY different! Homosexuality doesn't inspire polygamy! Homosexuality doesn't inspire incest either! What kind of question is this? All these 3 things have nothing to do with each other! Homosexuality is both accepted and unaccepted by society. Polygamy has acceptance, but more rejection. And incest is generally considered a no go!
It is something that naturally occurs in a small percentage of population meaning that gays were gays before their marriages were legalized. Legalizing gay marriage simply acknowledges the fact that they are a part of humanity. They existed, exist and will exist in the future and the larger group has simply accepted them so that they can fit in as well. I think that the question is not worded correctly because the question is making a very clear link between gay marriages and socially unaccepted practices that specifically break the promises made when one individual marries another. Whether a married couple has a child or children and how they will be raised is yet another issue. Gay marriage may have been socially unaccepted and it still is to a certain extent yet that does not make them even similar and clearly not equal in any way to polygamy or incestuous relationships. Unlike those two, gay people cannot reproduce meaning that they will need to find a different way to conceive or get a child. Also in polygamy one partner is not faithful to the other whereas in gay marriages unless they divorce the binding terms of a marriage hold true and same as in a marriage. For incestuous relationships the reason why they are not looked kindly upon by others and especially by their kin are the biological and psychological issues as the purpose of humans or any other living beings' reproduction is to produce better off-springs and expand their territory. In terms of psychological problems, I mean how would you feel if your brother marries your cousin or even worse your younger sister or even your mother? Feeling naturally grossed out anybody? Even though they can have sex unlike gays or lesbians the chances of their babies being born handicapped or with seriously debilitating diseases or conditions is too high which is why the human species avoids or at least tries to avoid these kinds of relationships since it is harmful for their survival in the long-run. How the children brought up by gay parents are influenced in ways they think about gender and themselves is once again an entirely different topic. Once again I think that gay marriage is still a socially unaccepted practice but cannot be put on the same pedestal as polygamy and incestuous relationships since the reasons why those latter two relationships are not accepted are not the same or even similar to why gay marriages have been opposed in the past. Whether one gay and another gay live separately or together does not present any tangible threat to the society at large but whether or not polygamy or incestuous relationships are legalized presents unpredictably countless biological, legal and psychological problems and an unmistakable cultural change to the entire humanity.
Homosexual relationships are pretty much the exact same 'type' of relationship as heterosexual relationships are. Unless you're arguing that potential for natural reproduction is a key difference, in which case you are also dismissing the actual, consensual romantic love that these sorts of relationships are *actually* based on, and which is the grounds on which they are recognized. This argument would also mean that you *have* to be excluding infertile couples, old couples who have not managed to reproduce, and individuals who do not want children and take all possible measures apart from literally removing their genitals or never having sex, from this definition of marriage, else you are being hypocritical.
Will recognition of homosexual marriages, which for almost all intents and purposes are exactly the same as heterosexual marriages (or at least ones where purely natural reproduction is not possible) lead to recognition of entirely different 'classes' of marriage? I highly doubt it.
Polygamy: This type of relationship is almost universally unfair and unequal, and is as it is entirely because of what *one* of the people in the relationship wants, not what all of the involved individuals want. You would likely be hard pressed to find an example of this type of relationship that does not involve coercion, which nullifies consent. Humans are naturally monogamous, and this clearly shows when people attempt to 'game' relationships by trying to get their hands on as many sexual partners as they can. I would also argue that it is also not psychologically healthy to live in the delusion that it is okay to have as many sexual partners as you are able to get your hands on.
Incest: As long as reproduction isn't involved, due to the inherent very high risk for genetic conditions in the offspring, and as long as it can be shown that there are no preexisting psychological issues leading to this attraction (again, there is a reason that humans are naturally averse to incestuous relationships), then I actually don't really have a problem with this. Parental incest I *do* have a problem with, in the same manner as I have a problem with any type of relationship where someone in an authority position is clearly taking advantage of someone they are meant to be caring for.
Bestiality/pedophilia: Children and non-sapient animals are definitionally not capable of giving informed consent. Any form of sexual relationship between them and an adult person is by definition rape. There is never going to be a way to get around that issue. Either rape is legal as a whole (which is ridiculous, and a violation of human rights), or these two types of relationship are illegal.