Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
And it's completely reasonable, not a sidetrack in the least, to ask what those nuances are and why they are relevant. Especially when one's argument for gay marriage would appear to validate polygamy and incest as well.
|
FootThemAll,
- Polygamy has the issue of weak relationship bonds as well as legal complications shrouding inheritance, divorce and custody.
- Incest has the problem of causing genetic disorders in offspring and thus future generation’s health.
Same-sex marriage does not share these complications. The argument that “sex does not matter” does not apply to polygamy or incest because it does not touch the primary arguments against these practices. For example, incest already qualifies for the current definition of marriage (union between a man and a woman), the reason it is considered illegal has nothing to do with this definition and will not be effected if the definition is changed to include same-sex marriage. The argument that “if same-sex marriage is allowed then polygamy and incest must be allowed” is not valid.
Polygamy, incest, underage marriage, mentally handicapped couples, and bestiality should not be questioned based on people opinions (definitions, viewpoints, traditions); they should be questioned because all of them pose actual problems to society, health, child welfare and/or law.
The big question seems to be: if we change the legal definition of marriage, how far will we go? - As far as reasonably possible. This is certainly not the first time or the last time that the legal definition of marriage will change. As long as the change hold benefits for individuals and doest harm society or state then we should move ahead and make the change.
~ That took me forever to write (and re-write) hope it clears up that issue.